source stringlengths 620 29.3k | target stringlengths 12 1.24k |
|---|---|
Modal verbs + which verb tense? When you use "could have", do you have to use past tense to be grammatically correct? These modal verbs really confuse me because I'm not sure if I always have to match everything to the tense of the modal verb I'm using, or if I can mix and match verb tenses. Please see my examples: I could have used the paprika in the refrigerator since it is similar to the bell pepper the recipe called for. I could have used the paprika in the refrigerator since it was similar to bell peppers the recipe called for. I could have used what was in the refrigerator since they are similar to what the recipe calls for. And then with "must have," I tried to use both simple past and present continuous. Do you think the sentence below is correct? I must have ignored my friends who were cheering on for me because I was so happy to have reached the finish line. What about should in this sentence? I thought I should tell you that I will be attending your party next Friday. <Q> Technically, the tense should match, so since we're using the perfect tense ( conditional perfect in fact), you should use was . <S> But both could have ... <S> is and could have ... <S> was <S> are acceptable in this case. <S> Why? <S> Well, it's because your clause about the paprika being similar to the bell pepper might be true for a long time, and might continue to be true even in the present, so it might be okay to use is . <S> Maybe not. <S> Maybe the paprika is rotten by now, or already eaten. <S> Then is would make no sense. <S> But a situation continuing to the present would justify use of the present tense is . <S> Consider: "I could have gone shopping, because the supermarket was near." <S> "I could have gone shopping, because the supermarket is near." <S> If the supermarket has not suddenly moved, it probably still is near – it is now, and it was then – so either one is acceptable. <S> But some things do not last so long: <S> Correct: "I could have stayed longer, because it was early in the morning. <S> " <S> Incorrect: "I could have stayed longer, because it is early in the morning." <S> Unless you are describing something in the very recent past (minutes or hours ago), the fact that it is now early probably has nothing to do with the situation in the first half of that sentence, so mixing the past and present tense in this last example doesn't really work. <A> "I could have used the paprika in the refrigerator since it is similar to the bell pepper the recipe called for." <S> This is correct in my view. <S> "I could have used what was in the refrigerator since they are similar to what the recipe calls for." <S> This is also correct. <S> "I must have ignored my friends who were cheering on for me because I was so happy to have reached the finish line". <S> This is correct as far as your question, however I'd say "... <S> my friends who were cheering me on because... <S> ". <S> "I thought I should tell you that I will be attending your party next Friday." <S> This is correct. <A> The difference between the first and the second sentence is not grammatical. <S> In the second sentence you are giving extra information: The paprika that was in the refrigerator is still in the refrigerator. <S> I would not compare paprika with bell peppers and say they are similar. <S> Probably you mean that paprika has some property (e.g. color, taste) that is similar to the one the bell peppers suggested in the recipe have. <S> In the third sentence, you speak of something that was in the refrigerator, and then you use they . <S> Apart in the case in a previous sentence you mention something else, it is not clear to what they is referring. <S> It is wrong if they is referring to "what was in the refrigerator": In that case you should say "since it is similar to what the recipe calls for."
| "I could have used what was in the refrigerator since it was similar to what the recipe calls for." is the sentence I would use.
|
What is the phrase describing "insects causing trouble and anxiety repeatly"? He has to fight with a lot of insects around his house in every summer, which have caused repeated trouble and anxiety to him. Could I call them haunting insects indicating the effect they are bringing? If not, what's the appropriate phrase? <Q> I would rather call them "bothersome/bothering insects" or "annoying insects". <A> Another word that fits in context is pesky . <S> Pesky , however, do only conveys the meaning of being annoying or making you feel upset. <S> I don't know any word that has the additional connotation of becoming anxious because of something what is bothering you. <S> For that reason, I'd phrase it like that. <S> He's worrying about pesky insects. <S> Aside: On COCA pesky is the second collocation (11 usages) with insects which partially conveys the idea you're looking for. <S> The first is annoying (16 usages). <S> On BNC the first word which matches is offending (only 2 usages). <S> Words like stitching , biting , harmful , poisonous etc. <S> may incidentally convey that insects will likely be annoying or worrying but <S> their meaning doesn't include that sense at hand. <A> A large number of fleas, bedbugs, ants, or other insects that are ruining things in your home is an infestation . <S> A colony of termites that is causing structural damage to your home is a disaster .
| Flies, mosquitos, & similar insects that keep buzzing around your house and refusing to go away or be caught are pesky insects .
|
Deep vs Deeply in the sentence? Atlantic Ocean has a deeply/deep indented coast line which facilitates trading and other mercantile activities. My understanding says deeply would be the appropriate choice. But I'm not sure. <Q> They mean two different things; which one you want depends on which meaning you want. <S> As a side note, it should be written as The Atlantic Ocean rather than just Atlantic Ocean <S> The Atlantic Ocean has a deeply indented coast line which facilitates trading and other mercantile activities. <S> This indicates a greater magnitude of indentation of the coast line. <S> The Atlantic Ocean has a deep indented coast line which facilitates trading and other mercantile activities. <S> This would likely be written with a comma ( deep, indeted coast line ), and means that the coast line is both deep and indented. <A> It modifies a verb or an adjective. " <S> He thought deeply about the problem." <S> "He stood on the edge of a deeply plunging chasm." <S> "Deep" is normally an adjective. <S> It modifies a noun. " <S> He is a deep thinker." <S> "He stood on the edge of a deep chasm." <S> "Deep" can also be used as an adverb, though this is generally limited to some specific contexts, almost an idiom. <S> " <S> The squad advanced deep into enemy territory." <S> "Still waters run deep." <S> If you wanted to say that the coastline is indented, and that the waters on the coast are deep, you would say "The deep, indented coastline ..." <S> In that case, you would have two adjectives modifying the same noun. <S> But it appears that what you want to say here is that the indentations go very far into the land. <S> That is, you want to modify the adjective "indented" with an adverb indicating "deep". <S> In that case you would say "The deeply indented coastline ..." <A> Both deep and deeply are used as adverbs, but deeply can also mean "very; very much." <S> ( Deep is also used as adjective.) <S> In your case, since you are not using any comma after deep/deeply , the word to use is probably deeply . <S> However, states with coastlines that are " deeply indented " or "fringed with islands" are allowed to establish straight baselines in order to simplify the task of defining maritime jurisdiction. <S> Atlantic Ocean has a deeply indented coastline which facilitates trading and other mercantile activities.
| "Deeply" is an adverb.
|
Are electric gadgets running/working or just switched/left on? In normal usage(daily more-like), I use sentences/phrases such as: Water pumps are running . Switch on the fan. My system has been working for 20 days now. Most of us use similar phrases too(even if our mother-tongue is not English, the closest match would still be among one of the three listed above). I know that none of them are wrong. But when generally talking about electric/electronic devices or gadgets, should the verbs like running be used? What other words are there that can be used instead? <Q> Pumps can be running when they're pumping, or your computer can be running when it's generating CPU cycles of something. <S> When something is on , it simply means its essential parts are receiving power (probably electric). <S> When a pump isn't running, it's probably not using power, so there is no difference in meaning. <S> On implies that there is a kind of binary switch somewhere: it's either on or off. <S> Work can mean two things: <S> When something works , it is not defective. <S> When it is working , it is occupied working on a task. <S> You computer has been working on a certain task for 20 days, like cracking a huge database of encrypted passwords. <S> If it hasn't been working on specific tasks all the time, then you wouldn't say it has been working for 20 days, but rather running . <S> Or it has been on for 20 days. <A> This varies a lot by culture. <S> I've heard many of my foreign students that learned English in other places refer to a light being "closed" instead of "on". <S> In America we might refer to a "closed" circuit in technical circles, but not in everyday English. <S> "Running" means that it is doing something. <S> "Working <S> " means that it is doing something productive OR that there are no problems with it's function. <S> Although these are subtleties, and usually you can use any of the three. <S> The subtleties and multiple meanings make this confusing: <S> "My engine is running, but I can't make the car move." <S> In this case your engine may not be working to move the car, but it is running (burning gas and making noise)."I can't open your e-mail right now, my computer is working on something." <S> In this case you are indicating that your computer is very busy. <S> "My <S> computer is working fine. <S> " <S> Indicates there is no problem with the function of your computer, but it might not be "on" at this very moment. <S> If something is "not working" or "not running" it may indicate a larger problem then just needing to turn it on. <A> For example, consider my DVR: I can leave it on all day, but it would only be running if it was recording, or I was watching a movie. <S> The terminology can vary slightly depending on how the device is designed. <S> If you can power a device on or off without it doing anything else, then it can be left on even when it's not running ; examples would include a cell phone or a computer. <S> However, some devices can't powered on unless they are actually doing something, like a toaster. <S> You can't simply leave a toaster on . <S> Fans can be turned on, but, once they are on, they are running. <S> You can leave a fan running, and you can leave a fan turned off. <S> If you leave a fan turned on, though, the implication is that the fan is running – but that wouldn't hold true for a monitor. <S> And some devices don't really run at all. <S> For example, I can't imagine myself saying, "the radio is running. <S> " It's hard to state a general rule that will work in all circumstances, but I would say that if the device has a motor, then it runs, and if it doesn't have a motor, it doesn't run. <S> That's why my DVD player and my refrigerator both run , but my television and my oven are simply on .
| As for running vs left on , an appliance or piece of equipment can be left on but not running – if it's not been powered off, but it's not doing anything, either. "On" means that there is some sort of power flowing. Running implies a kind of specific activity.
|
Present perfect when emailing people I've noticed that people use present perfect when emailing other people, but I'm not sure how to utilize that verb tense. Will my example below work? "To this email, I've attached the copies of the photos you asked for. Also, because you told me that you didn't get the other copies, I've made more copies for you. I've also attached them to this email." Or should I use the following? "To this email, I attached the copies of the photos you asked for. Also, because you told me that you didn't get the other copies, I made more copies for you. I also attached them to this email." Is there a reason why people use present perfect when emailing? <Q> First one seems reasonably good and enough. <S> Though, I believe you can also phrase 1st line as, <S> I have, herewith, attached the copies of the photos you asked for. <S> I also don't see the need for the following phrase in the end. <S> I've also attached them to this email. <S> Also, it's usually a good practice to make a list of the attached items to the mail in a sequence - and then perhaps add some information in front of them individually as you may see fit. <S> For instance: Please find the following files attached herewith: <S> abc.jpg - <S> As requested by you in the last mail def.jpg , ghi.jpg - Copies of the earlier photos you were not able to receive jkl.jpg , mno.jpg <A> This is probably one of those cases where British English would use the present perfect tense, while American English would use the simple past tense. <S> The present perfect tense is used: To describe how an even in the past continues to be relevant at a later time <S> Mario has arrived home. <S> To describe a event that started in the past and continue into the present <S> Michelle has shopped at that store since she was a child. <S> To describe an repeated event happened in the past She has walked downtown everyday for a year. <S> Supposing that you are talking to somebody, and you say "Mario has arrived home. <S> " you are saying that Mario is still at home, while when you say "Mario arrived home. <S> " you are not saying where Mario actually is. <S> If you say "I attached the copies of the photo," the person who receives the email will understand that the copies of the photos are still attached to the email, if you don't say something different. <A> I think it's because the past tense sounds somewhat awkward when the author is composing the email. <S> We use the present perfect tense when we want to talk about unfinished actions that started in the past and continue to the present. <S> 1 <S> Well, at the moment you are composing the email, the action is unfinished. <S> The email is still unsent. <S> So, when I'm proofreading my own email: I attached copies of the photos you asked for. sounds off. <S> The action isn't done; my email is still sitting in front of me. <S> I'll grant you, the language would sound just fine if I imagined myself as the reader, reading an already-sent email message, but it seems like I've attached <S> reads better before the email is sent, which is perhaps why you see that form as often as you do. <S> Incidentally, I wouldn't be thrown off by either of the two versions you composed. <A> Short answer: Use the Past Simple if it's clearer, and it is a bit clearer here, plus is quicker and more common. <S> Longer answer: <S> The Present Perfect is usually used in three ways. <S> Life experience (something occurring in the subject's past): <S> I've participated in scavenger hunts with members of the Royal Family. <S> I've never studied Martian. <S> I've tried to, but I only have one larynx. <S> A change or action which affects or relates to the present situation: <S> We've sent you the insects you requested. <S> (They're in the mail.) <S> I've caught a cold. <S> (Now I'm sick.) <S> My girlfriend has broken my hip. <S> (Now she hops.) <S> An action or state lasting up until now: <S> We've been waiting around all day for that asteroid to hit. <S> I've never been good at wrestling ogres. <S> In your example, while all of those Present Perfect verbs are examples of a past action having a result relevant to the matter at hand, it's a little clearer if you use Past Simple because when someone's quickly reading an email the Present Perfect may be less obvious. <S> This is because of potential confusion with the 'life experience'. <S> If you write '...I've made more copies for you.' <S> it may also be read similar to 'I've made more copies for you at times in the past.' <S> and it's subtly more courteous to the reader to remove the confusion. <S> Past Simple may also refer to the past but the context makes it clear here. <S> Both tenses are correct in this case and we have a choice of whether we want to speak as though we're emphasizing the events when they happened or the present situation created by them, and I prefer the Past Simple for clear communication. <S> If this were literature, I'd probably use the Present Perfect because we really are more concerned with the resulting situation, unless I were trying to evoke a more vernacular feel.
| In your case, you could say "I have attached the copies of the photos" since the copies of the photos are still attached to the email when you will send it.
|
"Could care less" or "could not care less"? In the following sentence, should I say "could care less" or "could not care less"? I could not care less of what you think. Sometimes I have seen written "could care less" and sometimes "could not care less." Since it happens in informal contexts, I am not sure if "could not care less" is the right phrase, or if both are correct and they have slightly different meanings. <Q> The vast majority of British speakers would say I could not care less <S> In my experience, its mostly only US speakers who would say <S> I could care less <S> The omission of the word "not" completely changes the (literal) meaning of the sentence, but you should understand them to mean the same thing. <S> The "I could care less" version is probably my single most disliked phrase/idiom---its just plain wrong, IMO---but its too late to stop it now :( <A> The correct way to say this is " <S> I could not care less about what you think.", meaning that "I care so little about what you think, that it is impossible for me to care less than I do now". <S> I believe over time, people have shortened it, similar to the way people shorted words into contractions ("I can not" becomes "I can't), but the shortened form does not really mean what they intend it to mean. <A> As a British english speaker, I would say "I couldn't care less". <S> "I could care less" implies a certain non-zero level of care in the first place: <A> In the following sentence, should I say "could care less" or "could not care less"? <S> That would depend on if you are using American English or not. <S> If you are, then use "could care less". <S> If you are not, then use could not care less . <S> The use of "could care less" seems to be just in American English. <S> It does not make any sense because it actually says the opposite of what is meant, when it is used. <S> What is meant is that the person saying it does not care about something. <S> It actually contradicts the meaning because it means that you currently care but have the possibility of caring even less, at some point in the future. <S> In England and the rest of the UK, people use could not care less . <A> "I could not care less" implies that you must care at least some amount <S> no matter how small that amount is. <S> I do not care means you have zero care or without any care for the subject matter.
| I would consider them distinct though, as if you "couldn't care less" you are unable to care about something.
|
Can I say "I take my son to school by car every day"? I drive my son to school. How to say it in correct English? Can I say "I drop my son"? I am not on my way to work and return home after dropping him. <Q> You drop your son OFF. <S> The phrasal verb is 'drop off'. <A> If you return home after delivering your son to school, I would say: I drive my son to school every day. <S> "Drop off" implies a brief stop while en route to destination, such as: <S> Could you drop me off at the library on your way to the mall? <S> Note that "drop off" takes the preposition "at," not "to. <S> " <S> The sentence "I drop off my son to school" is ungrammatical and would sound strange to native English speakers. <A> There are various ways to say this. <S> I would say: I drop my son off at school every day. <S> This is an idiomatic usage that makes it very clear that the son gets out of the car <S> and then you promptly leave to go elsewhere. <S> Where you're going next is unimportant. <S> It could be work, home, or somewhere else. <S> It's the second usage from Wiktionary , although I was surprised when I was unable to find a second dictionary with that definition. <S> Less idiomatically, one might say: I drive my son to school every day. <S> This is a very clear and literal way of stating what you're doing. <S> Other possible forms include: <S> I take my son to school every day. <S> Listeners will assume you're driving. <S> I give my son a ride to school every day. <S> Giving someone "a ride" means that you're driving and they're your passenger. <S> Listeners will assume a car unless context implies otherwise.
| If, however, you delivered your son to school and then went on to another destination, I would say: I drop off my son at school every day.
|
What does 'just so you know' mean? “just so you know” ( Urban Dictionary ) What does this mean? And what grammatical role does “so” have? <Q> Just so you know is a pretty ordinary construction, as such things go in English. <S> Just = "only" So is the ordinary adverb, employed in the sense "in order that" *You know" = <S> "you know", "you are aware of" <S> So: I provide this information (without being asked) in order that you may be aware of it and thus be spared embarrassment or inadvertent error. <A> "Just so you know" is nothing more than a snarky, passive aggressive phrase. <S> It means "I don't feel obligated to explain myself to you, but since I want to have the last word <S> and I'm too chicken to tell you to mind your own business, I'm going to explain myself and hope you don't realize that you're being disrespected and patronized. <S> Just so you know. <S> "It's the same as saying "Just sayin..." <A> I deactivated my profile on the dating website, just so you know. <S> Just so you know, I am not seeing her from the last month.
| "Just so you know" is a phrase that is used when giving information you are not obligated to give, or giving information as courtesy.
|
Little hard translation from Polish to English "Someone waited but _not done_"? I want to translate ktoś nie doczekał się (na X) i zrezygnował (== "someone was waiting [for X, and X didn't happen] and resigned"). I cannot find the right negation for wait ; maybe there is no equivalent. I found some translations that very close to what I want to say. He did not live and resigned. He did not wait and resigned. He did not reach and resigned. What translation is more valid and common? I am not sure if I should say "He was waiting for order but he did not wait and resign." What would a native speaker say? Polish use aspects which not exist in English so it can not be translated without omit context or artificial syntax - I did not know that before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_aspect http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspekt_(j%C4%99zykoznawstwo) The most valid translation could be: Czekałem, ale nie doczekałem się i zrezygnowałem == ugly I waited, but waiting was not successful and I gave up or shortly (small loose of context) I waited and gave up <Q> I would probably say: Despite waiting [for three hours], the bus did not arrive. <S> or perhaps even better, you could use in vain (meaning to no avail ) <S> I waited [for the bus] in vain. <S> or more directly: He waited for the orders, but they never came. <S> (Note that in the final example, "orders" is used as in "military orders", not as in an order for food). <A> a. <S> To cease to do or perform: gave up their search . <S> After waiting at the bus stop for three hours he finally gave up and went home. <A> First, to "resign" does not mean to stop waiting. <S> To "resign" means that you held a job or an office and quit, or that you withdraw from a contest, such as a game of sports. <S> That is, you can say, "Mr Jones resigned from his job as an accountant" or "Mrs Smith resigned from her senate seat" or "Southhampton resigned from the football match". <S> But you can't say, "He resigned from waiting for the bus." <S> As Jim says, a common phrase for what you want is "gave up". <S> "When the bus didn't arrive after four hours, Bob gave up and went home. <S> " I don't know a single word that means "not wait", but you can simply use a phrase including the word "not" or something of similar meaning. <S> Like, "After four hours, he decided not to wait any longer." <S> Or, "When no one showed up, he quit waiting. <S> " <S> There is a related meaning of "resigned" meaning "accepted something reluctantly" that might be appropriate here. <S> For example, you can say "He was resigned to going bald". <S> So you could say something like, "When the bus didn't arrive after four hours, he was resigned to the fact that it would never show up <S> and so he went home." <S> But that's fairly long and awkward.
| My guess is that you are looking for: to give up :
|
Is the word "foreigner" to be avoided? Is "foreigner" a word that some people may get offended at? A Japanese person learning English used to use "foreigner" as a translation of 外国人 (gaikokujin). However, a native speaker of English told her that it shouldn't be used, and she's come across an entry in an English to Japanese dictionary saying (according to her) that the word has negative connotations. Is this true? If so, are there more appropriate alternatives? <Q> Why should it be negative? <S> It's just a statement of fact. <S> People can be a foreigner in lands that they have not come from. <S> Andrew Grimm, you mentioned that this question was in a Japanese context <S> so maybe the idea of the word foreigner being negative is something from Japanese culture? <S> I know how strict Japanese people can be in terms of manners and etiquette. <S> The only way that I could think of the word being offensive or negative in the English language is if it is used to define or dismiss people. <S> For example, saying something like "they don't matter because they're just a foreigner". <A> Unquestionably there are contexts where referring to someone as a foreigner (an outsider or interloper; a person from outside one's community) could be considered offensive. <S> That would particularly be so if the person concerned doesn't consider himself to be "foreign" in the current context (perhaps a Glaswegian or a Falklander talking to some Cockneys in a London pub, for example). <S> Also, there would be contexts where a person would rather others didn't call attention to their "foreignness" (a "Westernised" Arab talking with those same Cockneys, in a conversation focussing on whether police anti-terrorism measures should Stop and Search "foreign-looking" people more often than those who appear to be of more typically "native" descent). <S> I think foreigner is similar to, say, homosexual , in that because it is/was often used pejoratively, the word itself can acquire negative connotations. <S> So even if the speaker (and/or audience) don't have the relevant prejudice, the "potentially loaded term " would often be avoided in favour of more "neutral"... <S> people from other countries, nonnatives, nonresidents , etc. <A> I teach college in a state university, and I avoid calling anyone "foreign" because the term also means "strange, odd, or unfamiliar," which are words that often carry negative connotations. <S> I refer to students from other countries as international students, because I see the term "international" as more objective and less offensive. <A> Ironically, "foreigner" is an English word I hear being used almost exclusively by...foreigners. <S> I would generally consider it to be a rude or negative word, simply because in polite conversation there wouldn't be a reason to use it instead of a different, more polite or more specific word. <S> For example, if I wanted to say that someone who is not from America, where I live, is foreign, I would refer to their place of origin instead. <S> For instance if they were from Egypt I would call them "an Egyptian. <S> " I would simply say "He is Egyptian" rather than "He is a foreigner." <S> When referring to a group of people who are "foreigners," or to the concept of being foreign, I think there are less clumsy ways to say that. <S> For instance, if I were to refer to people travelling to America I would call them "travellers. <S> " If I were to refer to people living in America without citizenship <S> I might say "non-citizens," or in other contexts "immigrants." <S> There simply isn't a case I can think of where "foreigner" could not be replaced by a more polite, less stigmatizing or less general term. <S> Only when hearing people speak English in non-English speaking countries <S> do I hear the term "foreigner" used casually. <S> It is more of an artifact of imperfect translation I think.
| If you follow that link, you'll find that most in the vast majority of cases, to "call someone a foreigner " is implicitly negative/rude.
|
There's a thing for measuring a child's height. What is it called in English? I'm not sure whether this is a growth chart, height chart or height measurement.Its photo is at this website . <Q> The image depicts a "height ruler. <S> " To be more precise, it is a wall-mounted height ruler . <S> Friendly decoration on a height ruler is common in a pediatric (kids) doctor's office. <S> The photo shows a person taking the height measurement of a child. <S> A "height chart" is group of data points (height) taken over time and plotted on a chart or graph. <S> Many families will make a chart of their children's growth by marking a door frame with a pencil and making note of the individual child's initials and the date. <S> Of course there is no reason that a person cannot use the depicted ruler as a chart as well by recording the height on the ruler. <S> There is no way to tell if this is happening in the photo, but I don't see a writing implement in the man's hand. <A> Thus, I could imagine in informal conversation someone calling it a growth chart. <S> Height measurements would be more if there were marks on the wall at different points in time rather than just the scale. <S> The photo is showing heights and thus could be used for measuring the height of a child. <S> Ruler would be a better term now that I see someone else's answer to this. <A> As many other answers have indicated, there are a couple of words you can use: <S> Height chart Height ruler <S> Growth chart <S> Despite this choice - natives would normally pick "height chart" or "growth chart" with "height chart" consistently more popular than "growth chart". <S> Sadly consistency is not prevalent in the UK or elsewhere - indeed some shops choose to sell both . <S> Tesco (a major retailer in the UK) sells (at the time of writing) <S> 7 height charts and 1 growth chart. <S> Here are the statistics for wall-mounted " <S> X" on Google: <S> Height chart: 228 000 Growth chart: 122 000 Height ruler: 17 800 <A> I think they're commonly called "growth charts". <S> When I was a kid my parents had something like this on a wall <S> and they'd write our names and dates as we grew. <A> The medical term for a height ruler that has an indicator-stop that rests on top of the patient's head is a "stadiometer." <S> But it's a term that most native speakers of English never learn... <S> it's jargon.
| Height chart would probably be the most accurate to my mind though I'd imagine some would call it a growth chart as it would be used to the child's height which changes as they grow up.
|
Why is "it has yet to be found" used in the following text? In What does "yet" mean in this sentence? the OP quoted the following sentence, together with another one. Finally, even if the scroll didn't point to real treasure, it has yet to be found . Why is the sentence using "it has yet to be found" and not "it has not been found"? Does the first phrase mean there are chances to find it, or that somebody is looking for what the scroll is pointing to? Reading the other sentence, I would take there are few chances to find the treasure , except in the case somebody is able to understand which locations are described in the script. <Q> "Yet" means "at this time" or "up to this time". <S> So, "It has yet to be found" means " <S> As of this point in time, it has not been found." <S> The difference between "it has yet to be found" and "it has not been found" is that the first version implies that we expect to find it eventually, while the second does not. <S> Without the larger context, it's not clear if the sentence means that the scroll has not yet been found or that the treasure has not yet been found. <S> If the intended meaning is that that the treasure has not yet been found, the sentence is a little confusing, as it says there may not be any treasure, but then implies that we expect to find this non-existent treasure. <S> But perhaps if we had the whole paragraph or page it would make sense. <A> Because “it has yet to be found” to some extent <S> implies the existence of “it”, while “even if the scroll didn't point to real treasure” postulates there is no treasure at some place, the whole phrase reads inconsistently and seems to be malformed. <S> Instead, one would expect statements like the following: <S> Even if the scroll pointed to real treasure, it has yet to be found. <S> Even if the treasure listed in the scroll is real (but is not where the scroll says), it has yet to be found. <A> "It has yet to be found" implies "It exists and can still be found." <S> And that's (probably) true even if the scroll gave us a false lead last time.
| The ordinary interpretation (and possibly the only sensible interpretation) of “it has yet to be found” is “it exists, but so far it has not been found”.
|
Is "Please give me one day of time" correct? I want to take one day for someone. What will the correct way to write be? Please give me one day of time. Please give me one day at time. Please give me one day time. Through I know "Please give me one day" is sufficient to pass my message, I would like to also know its association with time . <Q> You don't generally combine day and time like that in a sentence. <S> I'm not sure I can offer you an alternative since I am not sure what message you are trying to communicate. <S> For example: Can you finish this report for me? <S> Yes, just give me one day. <S> What are you looking to communicate with 'day time'? <A> If you are saying that you are asking for time to complete some task or to prepare for something, the normal way to phrase it would be, "Please give me one day." <S> It would be grammatically and technically accurate to say, "Please give me one day of time". <S> But no one says that, because a day is a unit of time, and so to say "one day of time" is redundant. <S> As opposed to what, a day of height? <S> Well, I suppose you could imagine some context where it might be unclear without specifying "of time", like if you had just been talking about "a day of sales" meaning the amount of money the company made in one day, or something of that sort. <S> "One day at time" doesn't make sense. <S> People do say, "one day at a time", as in, "I am going to deal with my problems one day at a time", meaning, I am not going to worry about the long term, but just worry about each day's problems as they come. <S> "One day time" doesn't make sense here. <S> We do say "day time" to mean the part of the day that is light, as opposed to "night time". <S> But I don't recall ever hearing it used with a number. <S> You might say, "I like to walk in the park during the day time", meaning you want to do it when the sun is up rather than when it's dark. <S> But people don't say, "I spent three day times working on this. <S> " I've just never heard the phrase used that way. <A> By one day of time, do you mean one work day, or a 24 hour period? <S> Saying "Please give me one day" usually means the first, while saying a "day of time" has a literal meaning of 24 hours. <S> Please give me one day of time [to complete this task]. <S> This is the only sentence that is grammatically correct. <S> A colloquial approach would be : <S> I need a day to do X. Please give me a day to work on X. <S> I can have X done in a day.
| "Please give me one day" is usually a response to someone when you need one more day to complete something.
|
mixed functional and non-functional requirement Some background: Functional requirement of a web service is concerned with the correctness of the web service's function, say the service will always return a number that is less than two. The non-functional requirement of a web service is concerned with the performance of the web service, say the service will response in 5 ms. Question :The mixed functional and nonfunctional requirement is concerning both, say the service will return a number that is less than two in 5 ms. Is " The mixed functional and nonfunctional requirement " grammatical? <Q> Nearly. <S> It's probably not what you mean though. <S> Instead you might want to say <S> Both the functional and non-functional requirements or since " functional and non-functional X " is tautological, just All of the requirements will do. <A> In this context, I think the verb combine would read better than mix . <S> It's hard to say for sure, because both words can be used in a wide variety of contexts, but I believe combine suggests a more orderly blending than mix . <S> Here some wordings you might consider: Combining these two requirements, the service shall return a number that is less than 2 within 5 ms. <S> When these functional and non-functional requirements are combined, the service shall return a number that is less than 2 within 5 ms. <S> If the requirements are numbered, you could be more formal and specific: <S> By combining the functional requirement 3.2.7 with the non-functional requirement 4.1.3, we see that the system must return a number less than 2 within 5 ms. <S> That last one is a bit wordy and legal-sounding, but such a tone is not unusual in the context of formal documentation, where ambiguity can wreak havoc on a project. <A> I am programmer - Your definition functional and non-functional is totally wrong (see below explanation of etymology) <S> - it is very common mistake. <S> You define non-technical and technical requirements. <S> You should say simple (without repeats and tautology) <S> The requirements == <S> The mixed functional and non-functional requirements since F A <S> set and non-F A set is always A set. <S> Same is with functional and non-functional or technical and non-technical . <S> The functional requirements is what user/customer specifies (whatever it will be including technical parameters like speed of service!) <S> - why? - user/customer defines what functions/features it must have == <S> functional . <S> The non-functional requirements is what programmer specifies to fulfill user/customer/functional requirements! <S> For example user/customer specifies web service returning something with speed 5s is functional . <S> Programmer derived from it that it requires database, some database tables, validation of data and web server in some configuration - it is non-functional requirements <S> - why? - programmer defines <S> what functions/fetaures it <S> should/may have to realize functionality == <S> non-functional .
| The mixed functional and nonfunctional requirements is grammatical.
|
Is there an Idiomatic phrase for "keep something near your hand/near you in range of your hands or eyes"? In English is there a short/idomatic phrase to express that something should be kept in range of your hand or eyes? I mean for example: keep phone and email/something in hand range or eye range How can I express such range without using artificial-sounding language? <Q> I need to keep my phone within reach. <S> The expression is often used to say that something is close enough to be picked up right away. <S> In the case of the phone, the phone is literally within reach (that is, within an arm's length, or maybe nearby in the same room). <S> However, the expression can be used figuratively as well. <S> For example, a university might advertise by saying something like: <S> A better way of life is within reach. <S> meaning that, once you get a better education, there's a good chance your lifestyle will improve. <A> Another option would be handy : <S> Keep your cell phone handy. <S> Per Merriam-Webster , it means: 1: a : conveniently near b : convenient for use <A> Yes. <S> You can use the idiomatic phrase: I need to keep my phone to hand . <S> meaning that the phone must be kept somewhere where it is immediately accessible. <S> Can you keep an eye on the baby until I get back from the store. <S> In this case, the meaning is that the baby should be kept within eye-range until the speaker gets back from the store. <A> I need to keep an eye on my email and phone today as I'm expecting to hear from a hiring manager. <S> 'Monitor' might be used as well: "I need to monitor my phone," but is not nearly as commonly used. <S> 'Handy' and 'at hand' work well for a physical objects, but <S> not so well for something more amorphous like 'email.' <S> 'To hand' is one I've personally never heard before.
| I think a good choice would be the expression within reach . You can also use the idiomatic phrase: In my opinion, as a native English speaker, 'keep an eye on' would be the most natural phrase for this particular type of behavior.
|
Why does the name of this book have ‘a’ in it? Hermione whispered, "Its bewitched to look like the sky outside. I read about it in Hogwarts: A History ." (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) I think the name of the book would be better with ‘the’ instead of ‘a’, because the book is about the history of the specific school, Hogwarts. Now, why does the name have ‘a’? <Q> Hogwarts : <S> A History <S> Sardanapalus : A Tragedy <S> Citizens : <S> A Chronicle of the French Revolution Middlemarch : A Study of Provincial Life <S> The subtitle may be an alternative title rather than a genre Oliver Twist : <S> The Parish Boy's Progress <S> Another strategy is to introduce the subtitle with or : Leviathan , or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill <S> The Hobbit , or There <S> And Back Again <S> Frankenstein <S> or, The Modern Prometheus Kurt Vonnegut famously did both: <S> Slaughterhouse-Five , or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death <A> It's <S> a because it's one account of history of Hogwart's – there could be many others. <S> Consider: <S> Hogwarts: <S> The History Using <S> the instead of a might sound rather presumptuous of the author, don't you think? <S> Almost as if no one else would ever be capable of putting together another account. <S> The practice of doing this in titles is rather common; have a look : <S> Each of these works is one biography (perhaps out of many) about each person in the title. <A> History is a noun that tells the reader what type of book <S> Hogwarts: <S> A History is. <S> Because it's a noun, it requires an article in this context. <S> See this Wikipedia article about Nehru's autobiography . <A> One of the reasons I believe is that it isn't constant. <S> History can be expanded as newer events take place(as they do in the seven years). <S> Using A History for the name/subtitle makes it like a log of all the events. <S> These events can further be added to, edited and stuff similar to what Wikipedia entries are.
| The colon is conventional, indicating that what follows is the subtitle. In English books this is often a generic description, allowing the author (or publisher) to put the topic first, in bigger letters:
|
I'd like to know the difference between "taste" and " style" When I am shopping, a shop clerk may recommend a dress to me that is not what I usually wear. In this case, which sentence is more appropriate? It's not my style. It's not my taste. Or, if I like the way someone is dressed, which sentence is more appropriate as a compliment? I like your taste. I like your style. <Q> Taste denotes preference— <S> what you like, what sort of dress or book or cuisine you find pleasing. <S> Indian cooking is more to my taste than Thai. <S> Symonds had a taste for the exquisite in art and literature. <S> Her taste is impeccable: she abhors anything showy or vulgar. <S> Style denotes the manner in which something is expressed: Milton's style, for all its Latinity, is violent and excessive, intended to bludgeon the reader into submission. <S> Chanel brought a new style to the runway, one based on youthful ease and athleticism. <S> Thus, when you say of a dress that “It’s not my taste”, you mean, literally, that it doesn’t suit your preference, you don’t like it; and when you say “It’s not my style <S> ” you mean, literally, that it does not present you as you wish to be seen. <S> But in conversation one is rarely so precise with language. <S> And in this context what you probably mean is a combination of both ideas: “The style of this dress is not to my taste.” <S> So in practice, the two expressions mean pretty much the same thing. <S> Similarly, when you are congratulating another woman you probably do not mean to restrict your admiration to either her taste in clothes or her appearance. <S> You mean both, and either expression ought to serve. <S> However; the expression “I like your style” usually means something different: unless you are speaking to a fashion designer, it expresses admiration not merely for the manner of dressing but for the manner of behavior — <S> “I like the way you carry yourself, the attitude towards the world which your actions convey.” <S> So you’re probably better off saying “I like your taste”. <S> Or you could simply say “That’s a really cute dress!” <A> The answer to the shop clerk depends on the mean which you want to convey it: <S> Style then works along axes of similarity to identify group membership, to relate to the social order; taste works within style to differentiate and construct the individual. <S> Style speaks about social factors such as class, age, and other more flexible, less definable social formations; taste talks of the individual inflection of the social. <S> Style usually follows social trends and mods but taste is a very personal choice. <S> So if you mean that dress is not according to your age,class or social order, you could say that it is not my style and <S> if you mean your own personal taste which may not follow the social trends and mods, you say it is not (to) my taste . <S> For your second question I think both can be correct <S> but if you want to be more conservative about, it is better to say I like your taste in clothes . <A> Taste is your ability to recognize beauty in whatever form your find it — food, clothing, objects, ideas, art, behaviors, and so on. <S> Style is the way you apply your taste to the creation of beauty in your work or life. <S> Furthermore, good taste is a keen appreciation of how aesthetic principles — contrast, color, rhythm, texture, and so on — contribute to beauty. <S> Good style is the ability to express good taste in an authentic, personal way.
| The difference between style and taste is never easy to define, but style tends to be centered on the social, and taste upon the individual.
|
Why are they catcalling for their lovely new member? "Brocklehurst, Mandy" went to Ravenclaw too, but "Brown, Lavender" became the first new Gryffindor, and the table on the far left exploded with cheers; Harry could see Ron's twin brothers catcalling . (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) American and British version all use ‘catcalling’ for the cheering sound which exploded when they met their first new student. But dictionaries have negative meaning for catcalling, and so I’m confused why they are doing so for their lovely new member. Is the word used when they welcome someone? Oxford : a noise or shout expressing anger at or disapproval of somebody who is speaking or performing in public Longman : a loud whistle or shout expressing disapproval of a speech or performance <Q> From OED's "draft additions, 2006" ... <S> catcall <S> orig. <S> U.S. <S> A whistle, cry, or suggestive comment intended to express sexual attraction or admiration (but usually regarded as an annoyance), typically made by a man to a female passer-by. <S> Cf. <S> wolf-whistle n. <S> In OP's context, the catcalling for Brown is obviously favourable , because we're also told the boys exploded with cheers . <A> I have never read the book and only watched two parts of the movie by force against my own will <S> but I do not think that cat call has a positive usage: <S> What is a cat call ? <S> The history of theater is not always pretty, as evidenced by the arrival in the 16th century of the derisive whistle known as a cat call. <S> Audience members who wanted to express their displeasure at a specific actor would often launch into a loud and jeering whistle said to resemble the plaintive wail of a cat. <S> This noise could be heard onstage, much to the chagrin of the targeted performer or playwright. <S> Instead of a receptive curtain call, a number of actors received a cat call at the end of an unpopular performance. <S> The cat call remained part of an unreceptive audience's arsenal for centuries. <S> Modern audiences have largely abandoned the practice, but an occasional jeer or Bronx cheer may still be heard whenever a performer fails to win over the crowd or deliberately insults his or her audience. <S> Hecklers at a comedy show, for example, may still issue a piercing call whenever a comedian's material fails. <S> A cat call is often paired in people's minds with the wolf whistle , a two-toned whistling noise usually directed at attractive members of the opposite sex. <S> The noise isn't always meant to be derisive, but it is meant to be noticed. <S> Whoops, hollers, Bronx cheers and other rude noises could all fall under this term. <A> I disagree with @FumbleFingers' answer: specifically the part of it that says <S> It probably means they were boisterously and noisily enthusiastic about the whole process of "team selection", rather than that they were specifically keen on having Brown in Gryffindor. <S> The definitions you gave in your question are not wrong , but there is a specific usage of catcall to indicate (usually male) approval of an attractive member of the (usually) opposite sex. <S> I put the 'usuallys' in because it could in theory be used for women catcalling at men, gay or bi <S> men catcalling to other men, etc. <S> - however it is almost exclusively used for straight men calling at women. <S> From oxforddictionaries.com : 1 a shrill whistle or shout of disapproval made at a public meeting or performance: he walked out to jeers and catcalls <S> 1.1 a loud whistle or a comment of a sexual nature made by a man to a passing woman: <S> women were the objects of catcalls when they walked by the men’s barracks <S> I think catcalling is used here to indicate the boys' approval of the Lavender joining the team. <S> In other words, the whole table "explodes with cheers" and the Weasley brothers specifically make some kind of call that indicates either that they are happy for girls (any girls) to be joining Griffindor, or that they particularly approved of this girl (because she was good-looking). <S> As @Persian Cat pointed out, catcall is very similar to wolf whistle : it's used in the same way, the only difference is that it's some kind of shout rather than an actual whistle. <S> Depending on how the call is made, it can translate to anything from "I'd like to give her one!" <S> (explicitly sexual) to <S> "You're pretty!" <S> (fairly harmless approval). <S> It can therefore be seen as derogatory or demeaning in some contexts <S> but I would interpret it here as more like "hooray, the pretty girl is in Griffindor!" which Lavender probably took positively.
| A cat call may be a series of loud cries used as an attention getter, while the salacious wolf whistle essentially seals the deal. It probably means they were boisterously and noisily enthusiastic about the whole process of "team selection", rather than that they were specifically keen on having Brown in Gryffindor.
|
Phrase for "a person who cares much more about other people's business than their own" In the Persian/Farsi language there exists a phrase "a bowl which is hotter than the soup" , which means: A person who cares ridiculously about others' business more than his/her own business. I only know the above expression, a translation from Persian to English which is equal to this but it doesn't work because I want an English expression, term or adjective to express this character. Could you please help me to create it? <Q> If those are close, you could also start there and venture forth with a thesarus. <A> If a single word will suffice, those suggested by J.R. will do very well. <S> But if you want a longer, proverbial expression, you may pick any verse from Matthew 7:3-5: 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. <S> 2 <S> For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. <S> 3 <S> And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? <S> 4 <S> Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? <S> 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. <A> This isn’t a phrase to describe them, but I heard this expression growing up: “mind your own beeswax!” <S> I suspect it originated as a funny variant on “mind your own business,” meaning “don’t be so concerned with the business of others.” <S> More words for busybody, not used as often modernly <S> but people will generally know what you mean:“buttinsky” (they “butt in” to other’s business),“nosy Parker” (not sure of the origin of this, though “nosy” by itself is also an adjective for a person who is curious and inquisitive into things others would prefer keep private),“snoop” <S> (this is a noun or a verb, a prying person and the action of prying into private things),yenta (this is from Yiddish but is used in English sometimes; originally a yenta was a matchmaker, a marriage-arranger, but it came to mean someone who was always involved in the affairs of others);All these courtesy of https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/busybody <S> “he has his nose in everyone’s business.” <S> “Kibitzer” - a person who doesn’t have a hand of cards to play themselves, but looks over the shoulders of players’s to see their hands and tells them how they ought to play (especially if they look at more than one hand and base their advice on that knowledge). <S> This is sometimes used out of the playing card context for someone who always tells other people how they should do a task or live their life. <S> Kibitz can also be a verb, and the participle kibitzing. <S> Here is an idiomatic phrase: “back-seat driver.” <S> Similar to kibitzer, it came from literally someone sitting in the back seat of a car who constantly second-guesses the driver’s decisions, tells them they should be doing something else, etc, but quickly became a metaphor for telling others how to run their life.
| I can't think of an idiom, but, insofar as words go, you could try meddler or busybody .
|
Proper term for dog waste Can you please check my sentences below or write new sentences that sound natural for me? Be careful! Dog's poop just ahead. There's a lot of dog's waste on this street. Mind your step. Be careful! There's so much dog shit. Should I say dog's poop , dog shit , or dog's waste ? For poop , I wonder if it should be singular or plural. Can I say "Be careful! Dog's poops!"? <Q> The RSPCA (UK-based, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) has a publication called Complete Dog Care Manual , which includes a section headlined Cleaning up dog mess . <S> So I'd go for that if you're not sure how others might react to various different words (for example, poop may be considered "childish", <S> shit may be a bit too crude, and waste is somewhat "clinical"). <S> Logically, you might think dogs' mess would be more "correct", but in fact that form is quite uncommon. <S> Note that whenever possible, corporate/government documents, newspapers, etc., tend to avoid directly referring to the excrement itself. <S> You probably wouldn't want to bring it up in after-dinner conversation anyway, but "There's a problem with dog fouling in our local park" might be more acceptable there. <S> UPDATE: <S> Intrigued by some of the comments, I dug deeper. <S> It turns out Americans favour "poop" ... (NGrams, "American English" corpus) ... <S> whereas Brits favour "mess" or "dirt" ... (NGrams, "British English" corpus) <S> Note that I didn't include "shit" in those charts. <S> It's actually far more common than all the alternatives put together, but in many contexts it would definitely be far too vulgar to use safely. <A> I would say dog feces in formal situations (example of use here ). <S> Avoid using "shit": it's very vulgar . <A> The first two sentences don't sound natural at all. <S> It is not necessary to write " dog's " in that context. <S> It would be sufficient just to write dog . <S> Should I say dog's poop, dog shit, or dog's waste? <S> That would depend on circumstances. <S> You could use the word shit in situations when it is acceptable or you are deliberately trying to be, crude, obnoxious. <S> In general, it is better to use a more polite reference to it, which would be dog mess . <S> That is a common way of referring to it. <S> but, it's not as common. <S> Regarding "poop", that doesn't seem natural. <S> (The second letter P is superfluous. <S> An unnecessary, added extra. <S> Surplus to requirements.) <S> I don't know where you got that from or why you used it <S> but, in England and the rest of the UK, there is an English word in use which is poo . <S> It's informal and usually used by children. <S> It's not crude, just informal and is also used by adults when speaking informally. <S> It is also used in the context of dog mess and is a common, alternative way of referring to it. <S> In general, you can write dog mess (or dog poo if you are being informal) in your sentences. <S> You could also write dog waste . <A> Another term for it (British English) is Dog Muck . <S> This is certainly the term I would use in an informal situation where shit would be inappropriate.
| Another polite way of saying it would be dog waste
|
come across someone in a market When I go to a crowded place like a supermarket, it is possible to almost hit someone sometimes while seeing goods and moving forwards. How to describe this situation idiomatically? Not sure if come across is the correct phrasal verb. It is easy to come across someone in a crowded market. <Q> Edit: <S> To distinguish this from the other meaning of bump into which is to encounter someone, the sentence can be <S> it is easy to physically <S> bump into someone in a crowded market . <A> The sentence <S> It is easy to come across <S> someone in a crowded market is semantically incorrect if you want it to say that It's easy to hit someone with a shopping cart in a crowded market. <S> Sometimes you have to be specific when you make such statements. <S> Ambiguous statements like these, for example: It's easy to bump into someone in a crowded market <S> It's easy to run into someone in a crowded market could mean either to hit someone with a shopping cart or to crash into someone while walking or else to unexpectedly meet someone you know (of) , a friend or a TV celebrity, for example. <S> Once when flying EVA Air from Taiwan to LA, I ran into CNN reporter Mike Chinoy (we were flying business class; I was unexpectedly bumped up from economy class; he or CNN had paid for his business class). <S> I just happened to be sitting across the aisle from him, but he looked like an old EFL colleague of mine from Tokyo, so I didn't recognize him. <S> I thought he was my old colleague. <S> He noticed my stare and introduced himself. <S> I was embarrassed. <S> I didn't collide with Mr Chinoy, but I did bump/run into him . <S> And even though to come across someone means to meet someone by chance , I wouldn't say it to describe bumping into Mr Chinoy. <A> To "come across someone" is an idiom, meaning that you have unexpectedly encountered a person who you know or are looking for. <S> Similarly, "run into" and "bump into" are often used idiomatically to mean only that you encountered a person, not that there was actual physical contact. <S> So there is a risk of misinterpretation if you say "it is easy to <S> run / bump into someone in a crowded market. <S> " <S> You could use a word or phrase that is more specifically geared toward physical contact, such as "jostle" or "elbow" (as a verb) or "bump" (without "into"). <S> Alternatively, since the point of your original sentence is that you almost make contact but don't, you might make your statement a bit differently: <S> You have to be careful not to jostle <S> / elbow / bump <S> people in a crowded market.
| You could say it is easy to bump into someone in a crowded market.
|
Does 'massive' ever mean 'large number of'? Although dictionary says 'massive' only means 'heavy', I am always having the impression that in some contexts 'massive X' means 'large number of X'. Is my impression purely wrong or there are idiomatic usages like that? If there is, what is the usage? Does the phrase 'massive failures' mean 'severe failures' or 'many many failures'? <Q> Figuratively, it is often used to mean "large." <S> You could never say something like "There are massive people there." <S> (Actually, you could, but that means that there are a couple of really heavy people there; it would not mean that there are many people there.) <S> The phrase "massive failures" means "severe failures" as you said. <A> In the American English usage that I am familiar with, when you are using "massive" with a singular noun or a plural, it will always mean "large" or "heavy". <S> For example, Massive cat (Large or heavy cat) <S> Massive cats (Multiple cats, and each individual cat is large or heavy) <S> However, if the noun is a singular noun that refers to a group, then it can mean "a large number". <S> For example, Massive fleet (A fleet with a large number of ships) Massive crowd (A crowd with a large number of people) In a way, this can relate back to the original meaning. <S> To make a fleet larger or heavier, you add more ships. <S> To make a crowd larger or heavier, you add more people. <A> Here's a phrase where massive describes a large number: massive nuclear arsenal <A> Massive means: <S> Very large, heavy and solid <S> Extremely large or serious <S> With the last meaning, it can be used in phrases like "a massive increase in spending."
| Massive literally means "having much mass" (aka very heavy).
|
Is "money" a countable noun? Is money a countable noun? We had a little/few money left, so we decided to have a meal in a cheap restaurant so that it costs us a few rupees. Here rupees is the currency of India. I wonder few rupees make sense. But why we can't use few money here? <Q> Whether money is a count or a noun-count noun depends on the context. <S> Most of the time, it's a collective singular noun that never takes a plural. <S> When talking about different sources of revenue, however, the plural form, monies , as can be seen in these links to examples of " the monies " in Google Books and to this Google Ngram showing that the plural form has been used for more than 200 years, but less so today than in the early 1800s. <S> Here's an example of the plural: " And the Monies mentioned in each such Debenture, with the Interest thereon, shall be charged upon and repayable and paid by the said Commissioners out of the Monies which shall come to their Hands under the final Award to be made by... <S> (page 34) <S> " <S> Your example sentence should be: <S> We had (only a) little money left, so we decided to have a meal in a cheap restaurant because that would cost us just a few rupees . <A> Indians don't speak pure English most of the time. <S> They speak Hinglish or Marathi-English or other such variant, so they tend to use the original language's grammar constructs while speaking English. <S> I have experienced this first-hand as I am also Indian (coincidentally, my father's name is also Sudhir). <S> 'We had few money left' is an example of Hindi-converted English ( Hamare paas thode paise the ). <S> It's not a legal English sentence. <S> The correct sentence would be 'We had some money left' or <S> 'We had a little money left'. <S> Few rupees doesn't make sense either, as the meaning of 'few' in itself is taken as a negative, that is something like 'Few people have ever attempted this task'. ' <S> A few rupees' would be better. <A> Rupees are countable , so use few/many with them. <S> By the way, you can you a lot of and lots of with both "money" and "rupees".
| Money is an uncountable noun, so use little/much with it.
|
What is the right usage of the verb "congratulate"? I was wondering what is the right way of formulating a sentence in which I want to express my respect/consideration to another person. In particular using the verb congratulate . Which one of the following is right? I would like to congratulate you for this thing I would like to congratulate with you for this thing And what is the difference in the 'moods' if I use I should like to or I want to instead of I would like ? <Q> I would like to congratulate you for winning the race , for example, is correct, but I would like to congratulate with you for winning the race is incorrect, ungrammatical English. <S> StoneyB's comment about there being no substantial difference "in this context between should like, would like, and want to " is right on. <S> I would add to his comment that in most cases, they are just verbosities. <S> They can be deleted. <S> Especially in acknowledgments in which people say "I would like to thank Mr X for his invaluable advice". <S> Just say "I thank Mr X for his invaluable advice". <S> Likewise, just say "I congratulate you for winning the race", unless you want to add something like " <S> but I don't know how. <S> Please tell me how I can appropriately congratulate you in a way that you will remember for the rest of your life." <S> Then you can introduce the sentence with "I would like to congratulate you" and mean it. <A> "With" is a preposition. <S> There's really no reason to add a preposition between "congratulate" and the subject, ever, in English: <S> I congratulate by you. <S> I congratulate with you, above you, beside you, etc. <S> You get the idea. <S> While not entirely grammatically incorrect, it just doesn't sound right, here, because we don't usually say where we are right after the action of "congratulate" and before the subject. <S> If the location is relevant, it is put into the rest of the sentence: <S> I congratulated him from the audience, giving my applause as he took the stage. <S> I did say it is not entirely grammatically incorrect because there are instances when a verb might be followed by a preposition, then subject: <S> I ran by you, fast as lightning. <S> I looked above you and saw lightning in the sky. <S> So it is all about the verb and what you can actually, physically, directionally, do while using it. <S> Can you congratulate with someone? <S> Sure, you can go to their celebration party, and they might say: Thank you for congratulating with us at our party. <S> But they would never say Thank you for congratulate with us at our party. <S> The verb tense is wrong - you were doing an ongoing act at the party, that is beyond a simple one second interaction. <S> Just like you would not say I eat with you. <S> But you might say I am eating with you. <S> I know this is using another language to help you understand English, but this is similar to the difference between when you would use the preterite (past) and the imperfect tenses in Spanish: <S> Generally speaking, the preterite is used for actions in the past that are seen as completed. <S> Use of the preterite tense implies that the past action had a definite beginning and definite end. <S> Juan <S> habló <S> de la una hasta las dos. <S> Generally speaking, the imperfect is used for actions in the past that are not seen as completed EDIT: or are ongoing . <S> Use of the imperfect tense implies that the past action did not have a definite beginning or a definite end. <S> La chica <S> hablaba <S> en inglés. <S> Source: http://www.studyspanish.com/lessons/pretimp1.htm <A> I think the most frequent verb construction is "to congratulate someone on something".
| I congratulate to you.
|
"convince ... to ..." vs. "convince ... of ..." “This commands respect. But you should keep in mind that you are sitting next to a person of the same sort. And I must tell you that I have not been instructed by the Politburo to convince you to join the Communist Party.” (Reported speech quoted from The New York Times) According to a book I'm reading, one convinces another of something, not to do something. But on the most important Anglophone newspapers there is a plenty of occurences of "convince [him, her, us, ... ] to [verb]" which convince me to believe that that book is uncorrect. Please, explain if there is a better form to write the above sentence, for example using "of", rather than "to", so that the valid fragment would become "... convince you of joining the Communist ...". <Q> Convince to VERB is a fairly recent innovation: <S> OED 1 does not acknowledge it even in the 1987 Supplement . <S> The earliest uses I find on Google Books are 1920 and 1927, and it is rare until the 1950s. <S> A correspondent to Merriam-Webster's Word Study in 1954 complains: <S> Another usage that jars me, and that seems to be becoming frequent in Pennsylvania and New York, is that of "convince" in the sense of "persuade," e.g., "She convinced him to clean the cellar," or, "She convinced him to stay. <S> " I have had it in student papers and have heard it in conversation for over a year now. <S> But despite continuing pushback from various "authorities", by the 1970s convince to VERB is found in all registers, including academic histories and literary studies. <S> (But you still convince them of a fact.) <A> I agree with what has been answered before, and in particular I support the idea that "persuade" is better than "convince" when it is followed by an infinitive. <S> I'd like to add a similar expression, although I don't know whether it would be more, less or equally used than "persuade someone to do something" , and that is "to get someone to do something" . <S> It's an expression which is frequently presented to learners of English along with other forms such as "make someone do something" or "let someone do something" , which in Italian would all roughly sound the same, "far fare qualcosa a qualcuno" . <S> Obviously, only the first one could be used instead of the expressions you quoted. <A> Maybe the guy who wrote the book thinks that one persuades rather than convinces someone else to do something, but they're reasonably interchangeable synonyms . <S> The distinction may exist for purists of one sort or another, but for most native Anglophones, I'd venture to say that there is none. <S> Google Ngrams shows more instances of persuade to do than convince to do , but that's true as well for persuade to believe versus convince to believe . <S> Convinced me of gets substantially more hits than convinced me to , but that began to change around 1990. <S> People who cavil about such distinctions are usually merely expressing their personal preferences rather than talking about real semantics and usage. <S> There's a difference between arguing about the distinction between "there were less people here today" versus "there were fewer people here today" and the "persuade/convince" distinction. <S> However, the distinction falls on deaf ears for those who are young (they weren't taught the difference) and those who argue that whatever the lowest common denominator among native Anglophones say is the "real language", kinda like Sarah Palin's "real Americans". <S> It's all politics. <S> Ignore the book's author, unless he or she has a convincing argument one way or the other. <S> Is that the case? <S> I doubt it. <A> "persuade to" is entirely clear and conclusive: a person is persuaded to follow a particular course of action. "convince" relates to a state of mind. <S> It is therefore appropriate "to convince somebody that he or she should do something", but "convince to" is simply not English. <A> I would think of it as being short for "I would like to convince you ( of the fact that you ought) to do something"
| It's a dead issue now: you may without impropriety convince someone to do something.
|
"Assault" vs. "Attack" in context This is a statement about Switzerland that I have read somewhere in this site: Not all countries are as small and as filled with impassable mountains. A seaborne assault on Switzerland is quite difficult. I searched dictionaries for assault and found it is one synonym of attack , but not as general as attack is: The Free Dictionary : A violent physical or verbal attack. 2. a. A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place. b. The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy. 3. law: a. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another. b. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another. 4. a. Law Sexual assault. b. The crime of rape. Is assault the the most natural choice for this context? If not, why not, and which word would native readers of English prefer instead? <Q> A seaborne assault slithers smoothly off the tongue. <S> All those sibilants! <S> A seaborne attack jangles the nerves just a jot. <S> For meaning, either one is fine. <S> For sound, assault is definitely more musical and, IMHO, much better. <S> Just an aesthetic choice by the writer. <A> The two words can be used interchangeably unless there is a specific style or legal convention imposed. <S> In casual conversation or writing there is no such convention. <S> I've read a number of military history books, and the choice of assault versus attack seems to be a style choice of the author. <S> The choice seems to be based on the size of the element that is doing the assaulting or attacking. <S> A small unit like a platoon or squad is often described as assaulting its objective. <S> A larger unit like a battalion is often described as attacking its objective. <S> But they do interchange to words depends on how it sounds, and to avoid the tedium of using the same word all the time. <A> You can also describe a seaborne assault as an amphibious assault. <S> See this http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amphibious+assault <A> In military terms, an attack is any violent action, such as shooting or engaging an enemy. <S> I can attack an enemy position by shooting at it. <S> So an assault would be correct in that forces are moving into the position in which they are attacking. <S> Clear enough?
| An assault is a violent action in which I engage the enemy in his own position by means of close combat or hand-to-hand combat.
|
Understanding a passage in relation with 'Clauses' and 'Phrases' Below is the screenshot of a passage from 'Oxford Guide to English Grammar by John Eastwood'. The passage says A clause has a subject and a verb . Subject and Verb are the elements of a sentence or a clause . However, in the clause Our flight time will be approximately forty-five minutes there is another 'sentence element' which is complement which is other than the 'Subject' and 'Verb'. However, the passage says that 'there can be other phrases, too.' What is meant by 'other phrases, too' here? Does it mean other sentence elements, like complement ? Or does it mean the types of phrases other than 'noun phrase' and 'verb phrase'. My main question is: In the examples of the clauses given in the passage, the clauses contain more than a 'subject' and 'verb'. They also have 'complement parts'. The 'complement' and 'verb' part of the example clauses have been shown to be separate or distinct. My second question is: Does the author clarify further in the passage that 'complement' can be part of a clause? Wikipedia on this issue says: In grammar, a clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. A typical clause consists of a subject and a predicate, where the predicate is typically a verb phrase – a verb together with any objects and other modifiers. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clause The above definition of the clause includes objects or complements in 'verb phrase'. <Q> I can see why Eastwood's explanation might be a bit confusing. <S> A clause consists of at least a subject and a verb; but most clauses contain more than just those two parts. <S> All the phrases/constituents that Eastwood uses in his examples are parts of clauses: each of his examples is in its entirety a single clause. <S> So neither clause contains only a verb and a subject. <S> His "other phrases" include the complement he uses in his first example, and also the other phrases in his second example. <S> Wikipedia apparently uses a different terminology , where the "verb phrase" includes all constituents except the subject, whereas Eastwood includes only verbs in his "verb phrase". <S> Note that the terms "phrase", "predicate", "verb", and especially "verb phrase", are used to mean different things by different people. <S> I agree with you that Eastwood should have been more precise and complete in his definitions! <A> The word "phrase" has multiple definitions. <S> In general it means any group of words that work together to convey meaning. <S> Here the author seems to be using the more specific definition that a phrase is a primary part of speech, like a noun or verb, together with any modifiers. <S> Thus, "dog" would by itself be a very simple phrase. <S> "The big dog" is a slightly longer phrase. <S> It includes the primary noun "dog", along with the modifying adjectives "the" and "big". <S> A "clause" is a group of words with, at a minimum, a subject and a verb. <S> Thus, "The dog barks" is a simple clause. <S> It includes a subject, "the dog" -- which is itself a noun phrase -- and a verb, "barks". <S> You could, for example, say, "The dog barks at the tall man." <S> "at the tall man" is a prepositional phrase that conveys additional information. <S> A sentence can have more than one clause. <S> Example: "I got a job <S> and I paid my bills. <S> " <S> Here there are two clauses, "I got a job" and "I paid my bills", joined together with the conjunction "and". <A> Does the author clarify further in the passage that 'complement' can be part of a clause? <S> To take your last, main question first, No, <S> Prof. Eastwood does not make this clear in the snippet you provide. <S> However, it may have been made clear earlier, or it may be made clear later, after Prof. Eastwood has laid what he considers an adequate foundation. <S> What is meant by 'other phrases, too' here? <S> Does it mean other sentence elements, like complement? <S> Or does it mean the types of phrases other than 'noun phrase' and 'verb phrase'. <S> It appears that Prof. Eastwood is building his introduction to syntax on the phrase, so I imagine that he means phrases of all types, and that he uses the term phrase in a fairly narrow sense. <S> His approach is by no means universal in grammatical discourse; verb phrase , for instance, in many grammars denotes not just the few words will be but "the entire string of words governed ( or headed) by a verb". <S> Your quotation from Wikipedia employs 'verb phrase' in the latter sense. <S> Traditional grammar, on the other hand, calls what Prof. Eastwood identifies as a 'verb phrase' simply the verb . <S> So as you can see, the matter is complicated by critical terminological differences; and we haven't yet even started to address what a clause is! <S> I am not acquainted with the Oxford Guide to English Grammar , so I cannot be sure; but it seems to me that Prof. Eastwood is trying to build your house from the ground up, brick by brick, rather than exhibiting its overall design first, and only then showing you where the bricks fit. <S> I therefore suggest that you would do better to take his study in larger chunks. <S> Read through an entire chapter to get a sense of his argument; then go back and reread, and perhaps everything will be clearer. <S> If anything still baffles you you will at least be able to bring us specific, narrow questions we can handle within the 200-800 words of an ordinary answer.
| A clause can have other words besides the simple subject and verb.
|
What is the “hole” in this desk called? This question has been created to split two questions previously asked here It is a "hole" in a desk. What can I call this? Can I say "Put your books into the hole"? <Q> That internal area is called a "compartment". <S> (If it had a container that you could slide out to place your things inside more readily, that would be a "drawer".) <S> (A "hole" is too generic of a term, and would not be associated with the desk; a "slot" would be a long, narrow hole that allows you to insert, for example, an envelope into an otherwise closed compartment. <S> This desk has a (closed) drawer with a slot.) <A> I would use one of the following terms: <S> • pigeonhole , <S> “A nook in a desk for holding papers” • recess , “An inset, hole, space or opening” • cubbyhole , “A small compartment; <S> a pigeonhole” • desk pocket , with pocket used in the sense of a receptacle, indention, or cavity <A> The hole in that desk can be called a slot. <S> See this definiton . <A> One could call the "compartment" a cubby , a cubbyhole , a pigeonhole (although a pigeonhole is usually smaller), or a recess , but the simplest, most common English word might be shelf . <A> Apart from anything else that does not look practical. <S> What would you put in there? <S> Paper? <S> Exercise books? <S> A slot is a snug, tight hole, usually horizontal, and just enough space toslide something in. <S> A coin for example. <S> A slot machine, for exampleis another name for a fruit machine. <S> In that case the coin slot isusually vertical. <S> I wouldn't call it a hole. <S> A hole tends to be round, not always, but if you were to ask someone to drawa hole in the wall it would be round shaped. <S> Google provided thispossibility: Open paper storage drawer <S> The actual piece of furniture is called "a four drawer open paper storage". <S> But admittedly it is a bit of a mouthful. <S> It would take you longer to say to a friend: " Please put the book into the open paper storage drawer. <S> " than to put the actual book away yourself. <S> "Hole" then would be fine, life's too short.
| Personally I would call it an "open drawer" or a "paper drawer" or"an open unit" or a "paper storage nook". I would not describe that space as being a slot.
|
What order should I use for "To my parents, my brother and my sister" in the dedication in my thesis? I want to include a dedication in my thesis. I wroteTo my parents, my brother and my sister. First of all, is this right?Second, what is the "ranking"?Should brother be first or sister? <Q> To avoid the ambiguity of whether your parents are your brother and sister (which in this case might cause a chuckle, even though it would be understood, but which slows down reading slightly), you would either put your parents last: To my brother, my sister and my parents <S> Or you might want to consider using an Oxford comma : <S> To my parents, my brother, and my sister. <S> There are no strict rules on ordering such a list in a book - you might want to list them in: order of age order of priority / importance <S> order of how much help they were to recognize the idiomatic ordering of the expression "brother and sister" rather than "sister and brother" to improve the "sound" or "rhythm" of the sentence or on any other criterion that you happen to choose. <A> or <S> To my parents and my sister and brother. <S> This removes the ambiguity that Matt is referring to, and keeps the 'first named honour' with mum & dad. <S> They should come first. <S> (You could have completed the thesis without your brother and sister being there.) <S> It's your choice as to whether the brother or sister go first. <S> To be consistent, you could select the oldest of the two to have the honour. <A> One way of saying this is "to my parents and siblings ."
| I would use: To my parents and my brother and sister.
|
"a ten years old boy" or "a ten year old boy" 1) a ten years old boy is sitting on the couch. 2) a ten year old boy is sitting on the couch. 3) a ten-years old boy is sitting on the couch. 4) a ten-year old boy is sitting on the couch. Which is correct? <Q> Generally, when units of measure are used as adjectives, or as part of a compound noun, they are singular. <S> When expressed as simple nouns, they are plural. <S> Thus, A ten-year-old boy is sitting on the couch. <S> The boy sitting on the couch is a ten-year-old. <S> As for the hyphenation, exact usage is a matter of style, but the hyphen will determine how to interpret the phrase. <S> Ten year-old trees refers to ten trees which are each one year old, whereas Ten-year-old trees refers to some trees which are each ten years old. <A> X year old is a phrase that can be either an adjective, noun or a construct of the verb to be <S> When used as an adjective the correct thing to say is year old . <S> A ten-year-old boy is sitting on the couch. <S> When used as a verb construct it must agree with the noun in terms of quantity. <S> The boy is sitting on the couch <S> is 10 years old . <S> You want to use it as an adjective in your sentences so the number 4 is correct. <A> When used before a noun as an adjective, use '' -year-old": <S> A ten-year-old boy is sitting on the couch. <S> When you simply state the age of someone, write "years old" and do not hyphenate: <S> The boy sitting on the couch is 10 years old. <S> Note, in this case, you can omit the part "years old" : <S> He is 10. = <S> He is 10 years old.
| The boy sitting on the couch is ten years old.
|
What does one refer to? Make new friends, but keep the old. One is silver, and the other gold. (A Korean middle school English textbook) Does one indicate new friends or any of both: new friends or the old ones? <Q> It refers to new friends. <S> You have "new friends" and "old friends" mentioned earlier, and then "one" and "the other" referring respectively to the first (new friends) and the second (old friends). <A> Friends you have for a long time are golden, because it's a long special friendship. <A> In that case, one is referring to "new friends," and "the other" to "old [friends]." <A> In general, one could refer to either "new friends" or "old". <S> It is up to the listener to decided which one is silver. <S> It's sort of a mild riddle. <S> Obviously, the composer of the song is trying to suggest the old friends are golden, which implies new friends must be silver. <S> Don't use this pattern if you want to be specific. <S> This is a song lyric. <S> The precise English would be <S> Make new friends, but keep the old. <S> The former is silver and the latter is gold.
| One refers to new friends . Silver relationships are new.
|
What is the correct verb to use for somebody who says nonsense just to make a person smile? What verb should I use when somebody is saying nonsense with the purpose of making a person smile? I was thinking of tease , but the OALD says it means, "to laugh at somebody and make jokes about them, either in a friendly way or in order to annoy or embarrass them." In my case, I am not talking of laughing at somebody or making jokes about them. I could say nonsense about something I have (presumably) done, or about something that (presumably) happened. <Q> I would call this being silly . <S> If my friends or I are being silly, we're usually trying to get a smile out of one another. <A> Also see prate , near-synonyms of which include blabber, chatter, clack, gabble, gibber, maunder, palaver, piffle, prattle, twaddle . <A> If the "person" is a baby, one expression is "to talk baby talk. <S> " That is to speak a collection of meaningless, but good sounding syllables, because babies can't understand words anyway. <S> But they can "smile" to pleasant sounds.
| The words suggested in comments ( play the fool ,“To behave in a foolish or comical manner”, and noun buffoonery , “foolishness, silliness; the behaviour expected of a buffoon”) are good; also consider josh , “To tease someone in a kindly fashion”, and prattle , “To speak incessantly and in a childish manner; to babble ”.
|
Is there a specific term to describe time 6:00, 7:00, 8:00 etc I was talking to my friend the other day about the airport bus timings, I was supposed to say Buses are due at 6:00, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00 etc. (pattern like this the whole day between say 5 am to 11 pm) Is there any specific term or way to describe the pattern? <Q> You could say the buses are due every hour on the hour from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. <S> This is a set phrase, so you should memorize it as a single vocabulary item. <S> That said, you can break it into two pieces to understand it better: every hour means "each hour"; on the hour means "at the beginning of the hour". <S> In other words, this refers to a time ending with o'clock or :00 . <S> When you put these two together, you get a phrase meaning "at the beginning of each hour". <A> snailboat's answer is very good, but if you are specifically looking for a specific single-word term to describe the "every hour on the hour" pattern, the word you want is hourly . <S> e.g., Buses arrive hourly from 5am to 11pm. <A> Let's focus on the context of the example. <S> Try <S> "Buses go on the hour between 5am and 11pm. <S> " <S> Why did I pick "go"? <S> Because that's when it leaves . <S> "Go" is perfect because every non-native speaker will understand it (airport context), and it has a convenient and accurate double meaning. <S> "Arrive" could be confusing because someone might think the bus arrives at the destination at that time. <S> About other answers: <S> Buses aren't normally "due", in conversation or formal texts. <S> They "run", "arrive" or just "come" (or, in England, should come! <S> ;) ) <S> and they often "go" or "leave". <S> I believe various spoken and written language usage corpii will back me up here. <S> As an English native, and teacher, I've never heard "at the top of every hour". <S> "every full hour" is confusing, "hourly" isn't specific enough, we're stuck with "on the hour" even if it's not so intuitive. <S> My second pick was "each hour" because it suggests more than "once per hour", but there's something unnatural about it... <A> I think there is not a single-word term which describes the succession of exact time like 1, 2, 3 o'clock, etc. <S> However, we do have a couple of phrases of common knowledge in this context, which are as follows: <S> On the hour . <S> The phrase is indicative of both every hour and exact time as mentioned above. <S> So when we say "trains leave for London on the hour", it specifies not only every hour but also the exactness of time; that is 1, 2, 3 o'clock, etc. <S> Even if we drop every hour , it will give the same required sense. <S> In fact, the words "every hour" are emphatic here. <S> At the top of the hour . <S> I don't think this phrase fits in this context. <S> Sometimes,we hear on TV that we'll have a news update at the top of the hour. <S> What does it mean? <S> It means that we'll have a news update at the start of the next hour of time. <S> It does not mean every next hour. <S> In addition, this phrase is not much in use. <A> I would say "buses arrive every top of the hour". <A> I would use every full hour . <S> There are some hits in the net: <S> SE: <S> JavaScript: <S> How to do something every full hour? <S> Linguee with a lot of examples. <S> I'm no native speaker, it may be a German 'false friend'. <S> It would be fine if somebody could confirm the term is right.
| Every hour on the hour is also correct.
|
What does "rank dishonesty" mean? I've encountered this phrase online and couldn't find a dictionary definition for the phrase. What does "rank dishonesty" mean, and especially what does the word "rank" mean in this context? According to a dictionary, 'rank' means 'unpleasant', 'strongly', or 'extremely' which are different from each other but all make sense in this context. I want to first confirm if this is a set phrase that has a idiomatic meaning beyond the literal one. Secondly, if it is not a set phrase, which meaning of 'rank' is the right one here? (My first impression, which is very likely wrong, is it means someone with lower social/military rank being deliberately dishonest (backstabbing) against someone with a higher rank.) <Q> To begin with, the noun rank has nothing to do with the adjective rank . <S> The noun is of French origin (possibly Frankish ultimately) and originally denoted a series or line of things <S> ( range has the same origin); then specifically a line of warriors or soldiers (whence our 'rank and file'); then the successive lines, the first, second, third ranks, and so forth, in which soldiers are deployed; and finally, by way of one's position in the front, middle or rear rank, one's grade or standing. <S> The adjective rank is of Germanic origin; the precise line of descent is obscure but it seems originally to have denoted various attributes of the noble warrior: proud , haughty , rebellious , strong , vigorous , full-grown . <S> In ME the martial connection faded and the word became used particularly of undesired and excessive strength, vigor and abundance; it was extended to vegetation (we still speak of 'rank weeds') and to loathsome behavior and smells ( <S> O mine offense is rank says Claudius); eventually it acquired such a strong negative connotation that came to mean 'corrupt, foul, festering', and eventually simply 'extremely (offensive)'. <S> See the Oxford English Dictionary, 1st edition . <S> When your source writes of rank dishonesty <S> it probably does not intend any one of these later senses but (at some level) <S> all of them simultaneously: extremely gross, corrupt, loathsome dishonesty. <A> "Rank," in this context means "downright" or "complete." <S> So the expression means, "complete dishonesty." <A> You said it yourself in the question. <S> As an adjective, "rank" means "strong" or "extreme" in a negative sense. <S> We often say "it was a rank smell", meaning something smelled very bad.
| So "rank dishonesty" is extreme dishonesty.
|
What does "resp." mean in these sentences? The abbreviation resp. has been used a number of times in the following paragraph: For each of these problems (resp., tools), we start by presenting the natural concern underlying it (resp., its intuitive objective), then define the problem (resp., tool), and finally demonstrate that the problem can be solved (resp., the tool can be constructed). I am trying to understand what resp. means here (and many more times in the same book). Trying to search using Google only confused me more, there are so many options. Also please see this answer , which says that "resp." means "namely" . Is this correct? <Q> I suspect this is a mistranslation of German bzw. <S> = beziehungsweise , which can mean either respectively or or as the case may be . <S> The translator has taken a passage in which the latter sense is intended and substituted the conventional abbreviation of the former sense. <S> The latter sense has no convenient one-word English translation, much less an abbreviation. <S> I have often regretted this, because bzw. <S> is so useful. <S> It sort of works, but not so gracefully, if you just substitute or for resp. <S> For each of these problems (or tools), we start by presenting the natural concern underlying it (or its intuitive objective), then define the problem (or tool), and finally demonstrate that the problem can be solved (or the tool can be constructed). <A> If the writer intends " resp. " to mean " namely ", then it's wrong. <S> That abbreviation is viz. <S> for videlicet . <S> I've never seen " resp. " <S> used to mean " namely ", and you'll notice that the answer you link to has received no votes for the 6 years since it was posted. <S> One can only infer that this is what the writer intended. <S> According to the Merriam-Webster's New Unabridged Dictionary (3rd edition): <S> Main Entry:resp <S> Function:abbreviation <S> 1 respective; respectively 2 respiration; respiratory 3 respondent <S> The Free Dictionary <S> online says: resp. <S> abbr. <S> 1. <S> respective <S> 2. <S> respectively <S> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. <S> Updated in 2009. <S> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. <S> All rights reserved. <S> And Dictionary.com says: resp. <S> 1. respective. <S> 2. respectively. <S> 3. <S> respelled; respelling. <S> 4. <S> respondent. <S> Dictionary.com <S> Unabridged. <S> Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013. <A> It's not being used in a standard way. <S> If I had to guess, I'd say it was written by a native speaker of German using respectively as an incorrect translation of beziehungsweise , abbreviated to resp . <S> I base this guess largely on the following blog post: Resp. <S> and other non-existent English words <S> This usage isn't a normal part of English, but by all accounts it seems that the "namely" gloss is correct. <A> It seems that "resp." was intended to mean "respectively". <S> The sentence is intended to convey the following two sentences without writing the common parts out twice: <S> For each of these problems, we start by presenting the natural concern underlying it, then define the problem, and finally demonstrate that the problem can be solved. <S> For each of these tools, we start by presenting its intuitive objective, then define the tool, and finally demonstrate that the tool can be constructed. <S> I am not sure whether this is considered correct usage of "respectively", though I have seen it used this way in some technical (mathematical) texts. <A> The German connection others have raised is a good explanation for why I'd never seen this structure until a few years back. <S> However, it's out there and in use now. <S> It means, or can be taken to mean , "respectively", in much the same way that it's normally used in English. <S> The normal use for "respectively" is to signify that the items of two (or more) lists are meant to correspond to each other in one-to-one fashion. <S> For example: The hunters and gatherers brought meat and tubers, respectively. <S> This means that the hunters brought meat, and the gatherers brought tubers. <S> Now, the use of "resp." is a little bit different, but the purpose is the same. <S> Instead of coming after the later list, it comes between items in each list. <S> So your example: <S> For each of these problems (resp., tools), we start by presenting the natural concern underlying it (resp., its intuitive objective), then define the problem (resp., tool), and finally demonstrate that the problem can be solved (resp., the tool can be constructed). <S> ...means that: For each problem , we present the concern , define the problem , and demonstrate that it can be solved ; and For each tool , we present its objective , define the tool , and demonstrate that it can be constructed . <A> Other posters who point out that this is a common error of Germans writing in English seem to be correct. <S> I have encountered this error myself. <S> Based on the examples, and others' likely correct assertion that the intended meaning is "namely", a term that would fit well in the context of the example is "i.e.". <S> Conveniently, this is also an abbreviation. <S> Example:For each of these problems (i.e., tools), we start by presenting the natural concern underlying it (i.e., its intuitive objective), then define the problem (i.e., tool), and finally demonstrate that the problem can be solved (i.e., the tool can be constructed). <A> Yes. <S> It means respectively. <S> I'm a French scientist, and we use it a lot in French ("resp." <S> = "respectivement"). <S> We then tend to abuse of it, when writing scientific articles in English... <A>
| It means "respectively", which is a way to combine two sentences into one by substituting something for something else.
|
What verb should I use for somebody who thinks that what given as proof doesn't prove what it should? I am looking for the equivalent of the Italian contestare ; in particular, I am looking for a verb to use for a proof, which for me is not a proof at all, and that I would use in a sentence similar to the following one: She told me something I could not […]. Google Translate gave me the following possible translations: Challenge ( sfidare , contestare , provocare ) Dispute ( contestare , disputare , discutere ) Contest ( contestare , impugnare , contendere , disputare ) Deny ( negare , rifiutare , rinnegare , smentire , contestare , licenziare ) Contest seems to the right word when it is used to mean "to formally oppose a decision or statement because you think it is wrong." Contestare is generally a word used in formal context, even if it could be used outside the court. Dispute seems the right word when it is used to mean "to question whether something is true and valid." Challenge could be the right word ("to question whether something is true and valid"), but looking at the example given from the OALD, I doubt it applies to my case. The story was completely untrue and was successfully challenged in court. Deny (when it means "to say that something is not true") doesn't seem to be the right word, as it is more a matter of questioning that what said is true, rather than saying it is not true. Which verb should I use? <Q> Practically, you may spare yourself the trouble of distinguishing these four words. <S> All four are commonly used as synonyms of each other, and very few readers or writers trouble to deploy them with any precision. <S> But if you are so eccentric as to want to use English with a nicety which will be imperceptible to most of your audience, here are some guidelines: <S> It is an announcement to the proponent that you intend to argue an opposing proposition. <S> Although I felt her argument was unsound, I was unwilling to antagonize her, so I did not challenge her finding. <S> Contest denotes active opposition. <S> It may be used of argument without impropriety, but is more often used of opposition to an action or decision. <S> Tonio however was bolder than I: he not only challenged the finding, he announced his intention of contesting it in a higher court. <S> Deny means to contradict a proposition, to assert that it is not true. <S> Tonio started by denying many of the key facts she cited, which he demonstrated were contrary to the testimony of the most credible witnesses. <S> Dispute , again, denotes active opposition, but is typically used of prosecuting a logical argument. <S> He disputed her rationale vigorously, calling many expert witnesses and discriminating very subtly between the legal precedents. <S> So which verb you should use will depend on precisely what you mean: what action you are describing and what action you are opposing. <S> (And for the record: the meanings I offer for these four words are their meanings in this particular context ; all four have other meanings in other contexts.) <A> The idea you ask for in your title and the construction you're looking to fill a word into don't match up; they're opposites. <S> Dispute , contest , and deny could all fit into that sentence, but to say "She told me something I could not contest/dispute/deny " means " <S> She said something which was absolutely true, and I could offer no proof to the contrary. <S> " <S> This is the opposite of what you want to say, which is that you do contest/dispute/ <S> deny what she's saying. <S> If you're looking for a word you can fit into that blank, you'll want one with the opposite meaning; believe , or accept perhaps. <S> She told you something and you could not accept that it was true. <S> She told me something I could not believe. <S> She told me something I could not accept. <S> If you want to use the words you suggested in your question, you'll need to modify the construction. <S> For example: I contested her findings when she claimed that the sky was actually green. <S> I had to dispute her claim that squares are round. <S> I know the examples are a bit ridiculous, but I trust they made their point :) <S> Interestingly enough, when we flip the construction, <S> challenge works better than deny <S> does: <S> I challenged her assertion that UFOs were real. <S> This has similar meaning to the contest/dispute sentences. <S> But to use deny in this way doesn't really make sense; you can say "She told me something I couldn't deny" <S> but you don't really say "I denied what she told me. <S> " I can't think of a rule to explain why, it just doesn't sound right. <A> The four words you mention ( challenge, dispute, contest, deny ) are opposite in meaning to what you want. <S> They all indicate that the argument is correct, or cannot be argued against. <S> Consider instead words or phrases like the following: <S> • credit , <S> “To believe” • fathom , “To get to the bottom of; to manage to comprehend” • comprehend , “To understand or grasp fully and thoroughly <S> ” • believe , “To accept as true” or “To consider likely”
| Challenge is most properly used of initiating a dispute by calling a proposition or conclusion into question. You might say "I refused to believe what she told me."
|
On the Wednesdays of September Vs. On September Wednedays Which is the correct one: On the Wednesdays of September, I used to go to the cinema with my dad. On September Wednesdays, I used to go to the cinema with my dad. <Q> Neither one sounds natural. <S> A more natural wording would be On Wednesdays in September, I used to go to the cinema with my dad. <A> On September Wednesdays would be understood, but I think a native speaker would more likely use in : Also, when referring to a set of recurring days of the week (Sundays, Mondays, etc.), one does not ordinarily use the definite article. <S> On Wednesdays in September, I used to go to the cinema with my dad. <A> Both OP's versions are completely unacceptable. <S> (I feel the way it emphasises <S> plural Wednesdays is "odd" in this context). <S> I suggest something like... <S> In September I used to go to the cinema with my dad on Wednesday. <S> It's grammatically optional whether you pluralise Wednesday there. <S> I tend to prefer the singular because we're not actually talking about very many trips to the cinema in total, and we're already stretching the idiomatic <S> "I used to" with such a small number of occurrences. <S> Using the singular dayname seems to me to help "balance" the utterance. <S> But that's really just a personal stylistic preference.
| In principle there's nothing inherently incorrect about the suggested alternative on Wednesdays in September , but it doesn't sound like very natural phrasing to me
|
What is correct, "in the British Islands" or "on the British Islands"? What is correct, "in the British Islands" or "on the British Islands"? Is there a general rule? <Q> Context, context, context! <S> It depends on what sort of sentence you're writing; we might say "There are many countries in the British Islands" but also "On one of the British Islands there is a mountain called Pillar. <S> " We cannot possibly give a general, all-encompassing rule for this, though given a sentence we could instruct on which is correct. <S> To decide which applies in a given context, you might consider whether the object in your sentence would most likely be described as on or in something else; a mountain rests on top of land, while a country is one of many in the group of Islands. <S> But this is perhaps a difficult determination to make for a non-native speaker. <S> If given a sentence as an example of your confusion, perhaps more instructive assistance could be provided. <A> As the "British Islands" is a term that refers to a group of states, "in" would be used instead, i.e. "in the British Islands". <A> As Stephan mentioned, you should use the word in , rather than on . <S> Another point is that people don't normally say "British Islands", the normal term is British Isles . <S> The British Isles is a geographic term covering the UK, Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man which is a British overseas territory.
| When speaking of territory, the general rule is to use the preposition "in" rather than "on".
|
Can we read 31 July as 'thirty one July'? Investigations continue into the break-in at Gringotts on 31 July . . . (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone; Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone) [audio] The first reader (Stephen Fry) says ‘ the thirty first of July ,’ and the second one (Jim Dale) ‘ thirty one July .’ I’m confused whether the latter can be used or not. Would you tell me? <Q> It stands to reason that a date written as "31 July" can also be pronounced a number of ways, including the bare "thirty-one July". <S> Note that to American ears, writing a date as "31 July" is unnatural to begin with, <S> so how you pronounce it makes very little difference. <S> Jim Dale has lived in the USA since 1980, so perhaps that had an influence on how he chose to read a date format that he rarely encounters anymore. <S> More likely, though, this was a stylistic choice to reflect that he was reading a newspaper article, where conciseness —even terseness— is the order of the day. <A> I’m confused whether the latter can be used or not. <S> Would you tell me? <S> ‘thirty one July.’ <S> might be correct in foreign varieties of English <S> but, it's not in the English kind of English. <S> In England and the rest of the UK, it would be exceptional to find even one person who said dates like that. <S> I haven't heard that at all. <S> It could be that saying it that way is something peculiar to that, particular person (Jim Dale). <S> In England and the rest of the UK, dates are normally spoken in the English way which is how he first reader (Stephen Fry) <S> said it, ‘the thirty first of July,’ . <S> They are in the order of day, month and year. <S> Unless you use a particular, foreign variety of English where ‘thirty one July.’ <S> would be correct; it would not be used. <A> In the US we say the "Fourth of July" or "July fourth" for the month and day. <S> You could also say "seven four seventeen seventy six" for 7/4/1776 for July 4th, 1776. <S> Four July would be interpreted as for July as in:"This bulletin is for July." <S> or "I will use July for my vacation."
| A date written as "July 31" can be equally correctly pronounced "July thirty-one" and "July thirty-first".
|
Is a comma needed in this sentence? Me and a friend are arguing on which is correct. Which one would be more correct and why? When cholera did break out in Britain Farr believed, like Chadwick, that it was caused by miasma. or When cholera did break out in Britain, Farr believed, like Chadwick, that it was caused by miasma. <Q> The comma you add is not required; the author probably felt that putting it in would make the sentence choppy and harder to follow. <S> But I think the comma is advisable, to make the syntax clearer. <S> I would rather eliminate the commas bracketing like Chadwick , which is a very light phrase which does not seriously obscure the syntax. <S> Alternatively, like Chadwick could be bracketed in parentheses. <A> I would write the sentence as follows, just to avoid that Britain Farr is parsed as single noun. <S> (When the reader reaches believed , it is clear that Farr is the subject of believed , though.) <S> When cholera did break out in Britain, Farr believed (like Chadwick) that it was caused by miasma. <S> In the same way, I would write the following sentence with a comma (but for other reasons). <S> When you see him, give him this note. <A> I would use the extra comma, based on this guidance found in the Purdue OWL : <S> Use commas after introductory a) clauses, b) phrases, or c) words that come before the main clause. <S> So, for the purposes of determining whether or not there should be a comma, let's rephrase your sentence: <S> When cholera did break out in Britain, something happened. <S> As the Purdue OWL goes on to say, “introductory clauses are dependent clauses that provide background information or "set the stage" for the main part of the sentence, the independent clause.” <S> In this case, the main phrase is the part we just shortened to “something happened”: <S> Farr believed that it was caused by miasma.
| I would follow the OWL's guidance, and put a comma at the end of the introductory clause that starts your sentence.
|
What does 'starve to death' mean? I have spoken of the rich years when the rainfall was plentiful. But there were dry years too, and they put a terror on the valley. The water came in a thirty-year cycle. There would be five or six wet and wonderful years when there might be nineteen to twenty-five inches of rain, and the land would shout with grass. Then would come six or seven pretty good years of twelve to sixteen inches of rain. And then the dry years would come, and sometimes there would be only seven or eight inches of rain. The land dried up and the grasses headed out miserably a few inches high and great bare scabby places appeared in the valley. The live oaks got a crusty look and the sage-brush was gray. The land cracked and the springs dried up and the cattle listlessly nibbled dry twigs. Then the farmers and the ranchers would be filled with disgust for the Salinas Valley. The cows would grow thin and sometimes starve to death . People would have to haul water in barrels to their farms just for drinking. Some families would sell out for nearly nothing and move away. And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way. (John Steinbeck, East of Eden) Does the highlighted part mean (1) ‘starved and so they died,’ ( to death is a [predictive or resultative] complement) or (2) ‘starved extremely’? ( to death is an adjunct denoting degreee) <Q> It should be noted that in that example Steinbeck is describing cows that would literally die from lack of food. <S> That is a totally correct way to use the phrase, but it isn't the most common use. <S> That phrase is seen and heard most often in a way that is obvious exaggeration and hyperbole, as in a kid coming home from school and telling his mother that he needs a cookie before dinner because he is "starving to death". <S> Neither the kid nor his mother thinks for a second that the child's life is in danger, nor that the kid is being dishonest. <S> In that context, "starving to death" is just an innocent turn of phrase that means "hungry", even just mildly hungry. <A> The animals were left to starve to death. <S> In the sentence above, starve to death means the animals suffered because they didn't have enough food to eat, until they died. <S> There are some phrasal verbs with starve , but none of them can be confused with starve to death . <S> "Starve somebody into [doing] something" "Starve somebody/something of something" "Starve somebody out [of something]" <A> "Starve to death" means starve for long time without any food or very less food until it dies. <A> If the question is whether "to death" here is "resultative" versus "an indication of degree", and not whether the cows died because they had no food to eat, I would say "to" here is an indication of degree or extent -- "to such an extent that they died". <S> An archaic form would be "unto death". <S> To be "bored to death" is to be SO bored... <S> To be "loved to death" is to be SO smothered with love that..." <A> It simply means: To die by hunger. <S> There is no need for longer answers. <A> 'Starve to death' has two meanings: one is 'to have nothing to eat until it dies' and the other is literally used to mean 'very hungry'. <S> To avoid any confusions, you can use 'die of starving' in its stead if you really mean it dies after a long period of starving.
| Starve means, "to suffer or die because you do not have enough food to eat; to make somebody suffer or die in this way."
|
Word meaning "to walk angrily with long steps without giving respect other people" Is there a single word(verb) to describe the action "to walk angrily with long steps without giving respect other people"? I found these three words which seem to be a close match for what I'm looking for: swagger, strut and stride. But I'm not sure which one of these I should use, or is there another other word that's better? <Q> I find the use of lope to be at odds with the need for anger in the motion, since a lope is "a long, easy stride; a leisurely canter"; <S> ease and leisureliness are not compatible with anger. <S> As StoneyB says, I don't think you can get everything all into one word or even one phrasal verb; you will need additional description for the part where others are treated disrespectfully. <S> Other options for that portion could be elbowing people aside , barreling through the crowd , or even heedless of the people in his way . <A> Stomp <A> None of these words will fully serve your purpose. <S> Stride includes the notion of long steps . <S> Swagger and strut both include the notion of pride, but this is more an exaggerated regard for oneself than any direct disrespect for another. <S> None of these words includes the notion of anger. <S> I doubt that any one English verb will convey all these notions. <S> You will have to pick a verb which conveys the most important one, and add modifiers which convey the others. <S> For instance: He paced angrily forward; his humiliated followers could only scurry behind, unable to keep up with him. <S> He raged up and down in long strides, shouldering aside anyone who stood in his path. <S> He sneered and loped off in evident anger. <A> One could plough through a crowd, angrily or not. <S> One might barge past some onlookers - to barge implies rudeness or indifference. <S> see also "he barged into the room, uninvited" I could also bull my way through the crowd <S> My ex-wife often stormed away in her anger at me <S> and I would storm off in a fit of fury. <S> If you do so loudly, you might be said to thunder through or thunder past the startled onlookers. <S> A sense of *Charged angrily" would work too: In a fury, he charged through the crowd. <S> Hope it helps. <A> I don't know of a single word in my American dialect that quite captures it. <S> But He stormed off works pretty well if your person is leaving a room, or a group of people in a huff. <S> It's frequently used in that context. <S> "Stride" suggests a person walking quickly, but doesn't imply anger. <S> A silly woman leaving a situation in anger over something trivial, who wants everyone to see her leaving angry, can "flounce" away. <S> But dignified people don't flounce, and men don't either. <A> I think that stalked is the perfect word….i.e. <S> stalked across the room
| I suggest the phrasal verb storm off , which encompasses the idea of leaving with anger. I think you'll find 'stomp' perfect for use in this context.
|
Is "deep" an adjective or adverb? She worked quickly but without hurry. She put an old apron to cover her clothes. In the basement she found a jelly jar with a top and carried it out to the carriage house where the tools were kept. In the chickenyard she caught a little pullet, took it to the block and chopped its head off, and held the writhing neck over the jelly jar until it was half full of blood. Then she carried the quivering pullet to the manure pile and buried it deep . Back in the kitchen she took off the apron and put it in the stove and poked the coals until a flame sprang up on the cloth. She washed her hands and inspected her shoes and stockings and wiped a dark spot from the toe of her right shoe. (John Steinbeck, East of Eden) When I encounter the type of structure, I rather feel deep is an adjective – Predicative adjective over the object - than an adverb. Is this right reading? <Q> In practice, He cut deep into something. <S> (about 2190 results in Google Books) <S> He cut deeply into it. <S> (1030) <S> By which you can see that native speakers tend to ignore that principle when the verb is being used "actively". <S> But when it's just a "passive" past participle, we invariably follow the rules... <S> He was deep hurt <S> (1) He was <S> deep wounded <S> (4) <S> He was deeply hurt (55000) <S> He was deeply wounded (20400) <S> Also note that in some constructions that might superficially look like "adverbial" usages, the word is actually part of an adjectival "modifier of location". <S> We use the simpler form there as well... <S> He walked deeply into the forest. <S> (38) <S> He walked deep into the forest. <S> (7390) <S> In OP's example, deep is used adjectivally as per the above (it's telling us where the chicken was buried). <S> It would be perfectly grammatical - if somewhat less common - to use deeply there (in which case the emphasis would be on how she buried it, not where ). <S> This use of superficially adjectival forms in adverbial contexts is quite common in English. <S> I can't think of an example where the difference between deep/deeply would be perceived as changing the meaning , but this certainly occurs with other words. <S> For example... 1: He acts bad. <S> 2: He acts badly. <S> ... <S> where in the absence of any other contextual information, we naturally tend to assume that #1 means <S> he acts like a bad person , whereas #2 is likely to be interpreted as <S> he's not good at acting . <A> Deep is an adjective, a noun (used with the definite article), and an adverb. <S> In that case, it is an adverb and it means "far down or in; deeply." <S> traveling deep into the countryside. <A> Deep can be both an adjective and an adverb. <S> There are some adverbs that have two forms, each with a difference in meaning. <S> One of the examples is "deep". <S> Example: <S> * They buried the treasure deep underground. <S> (deep as an adverb means "a long way down") <S> * He is deeply depressed. <S> (deeply means "very")
| In principle, deep is an adjective (modifies nouns), and deeply is an adverb (modifies verbs).
|
"We don't call it a/ the city of music for nothing." What is the exact meaning of following sentence? And in what situations is such a formation used? We don't call it a/ the city of music for nothing. <Q> "For nothing" in this context means "for no reason." <S> So the statement can be re=phrased, "We don't call it a city of music for no reason. <S> " <S> The original sentence featured a double negatve. <S> Cancelling out the two negatives left a positive statement: "We call it a city of music for a reason," meaning, "This city is known for its music." <A> Phrases of the type <S> [Z] [don't/doesn't] call <S> [X] <S> [Y] for nothing. <S> Are typically used as explanations for a particular behaviour or attribute, where the attribute is what X is well known for. <S> For example: They don't call Oxford "the city of dreaming spires" for nothing. <S> Where Z is <S> they , X is Oxford <S> and Y is the city of dreaming spires . <S> The university buildings are grand and have many spires, which is why it got that epithet . <S> The other type of usage for this construction is, e.g. <S> They don't call him "killer" for nothing. <S> Y, or the epithet , is killer and emphasises what his behaviour is like. <S> Such a remark is probably made after some violent outbust from X. <A> It's an example of synecdoche, which is a trope that resembles a metaphor. <S> It is a way of representing the whole with only a part of the whole; or using a part to represent the whole. <S> In your "city of music," the whole (i.e., the city) is being represented by a mere part of the whole (i.e., music). <S> As Randy Newman wailed in his ironic song "Burn On, Big River": <S> "Cleveland, city of lights, city of magic . . <S> .. <S> " Both "lights" and "magic" are synecdochal. <S> A teacher in a large class might call on a student: Susie, would you please count heads for me? <S> Meaning: <S> count the number of students (i.e., whole bodies) in the classroom. <S> Heads are parts of whole students. <S> Put Bach on the stereo; I'm in the mood for some Bach." <S> A Bach record/CD is a part of the whole person/composer named Bach. <S> There's no problem that can't be solved with a few hundred pounds of money. <S> Weight represents the amount (which should be quite a lot, unless it's pennies!). <S> Four hired hands did the heavy lifting for me. <S> Part of the body for the whole body. <S> Put your "John Hancock" on the contract. <S> Your signature is part of your whole agreement. <S> (John Hancock's signature on the U.S. Declaration of Independence is uniquely prominent at the bottom of the document.) <S> The quarterback tossed the pigskin 82 yards. <S> Footballs are no longer made from pigskin (I think), but a football's wrapping is only part of the ball.
| As to your particular example, it simply means that the city is regarded, at least by the person saying it, as highly musical and that the musicians are talented.
|
How to say that you feel apologetic toward someone? I'm trying to construct a sentence in which the speaker 'feels apologetic' toward someone. I want to avoid hinting at a sense of guilt or shame etc so that rules out 'I felt contrite/ rueful/ regretful/ remorseful/ repentant/ guilty' and similar sentences. The context where I want to use this is: However, no matter how much heart he had put into it I could notpossibly hand out those paper bundles to the readers. I showed him thebooklet I had brought with me. I had put in hours of painstakingeffort in arranging the entire content myself. His eyes grew wide ashe turned over the pages one by one, and I felt apologetic toward him. Here's what I thought of: I felt bad for him. I felt sorry for him. But these sentences imply 'pity/empathy' which is not what I aiming for. The sentence I came up with finally is: I felt apologetic toward him. But I've never heard anyone speak this way. Is this idiomatically correct? Or is there a better way of saying this? <Q> So, the situation is that both person A and person B have brought things to hand out, and both have spent hours on those things, not knowing the other was also doing it; and person B's handouts are clearly superior to person A's? <S> Then at this point where Person B sees person A realizing that A's efforts are completely overshadowed, B is feeling that it is unfortunate that A wasted all that time doing something that turns out fruitless. <S> Either there is empathy involved (B feels bad because he knows that A feels bad) or there is not (B merely regrets the lost opportunity to have A be doing something useful, or B is happy to outshine A). <S> If there is some level of empathy involved (and since person B feels "apologetic", it seems that there must be some), then either "felt bad for" or "felt sorry for" would be appropriate and idiomatic. <A> Is this idiomatically correct? <S> Apologetic means "feeling or showing that you are sorry for doing something wrong or for causing a problem." <S> "Sorry," she said, with an apologetic smile. <S> They were very apologetic about the trouble they'd caused. <S> The Corpus of Contemporary American English has 846 sentences containing apologetic , but only six sentences containing feel apologetic . <S> One of those sentences is taken from Man on a turquoise-colored cloud by Barbara Haas. <S> I feel apologetic for our warmth-our fire roaring in the grate, our sweaters, our cooking smells. <S> The Corpus of Web-Based Global English has 2504 sentences containing apologetic , and 26 sentences containing feel apologetic . <S> 561 sentences containing apologetic are written in American English, and 575 in British English; for sentences containing feel apologetic , those numbers become 5 and 4 respectively. <A> OP seems to understand the difference between feeling sorry for someone (empathising with their plight, which you didn't necessarily cause), and feeling apologetic towards them (where you feel responsible for their unhappy circumstance, and are perhaps minded to explicitly apologise for your involvement). <S> The reason people might think it's "not idiomatic" to say you felt apologetic toward (or BrE towards ) <S> someone is mainly because the sentiment itself isn't something we normally say <S> (we're much more likely to either simply say we feel sorry for him , or guilty about [whatever we did to him]. <S> Because we don't often say it, people aren't sure which preposition to use. <S> Here are <S> a few examples of felt apologetic to him <S> / her , for example (there's no "rule of grammar" saying that's actually wrong). <S> And although again it's uncommon <S> , there's also <S> felt apologetic for him / her . <S> But that has a somewhat different sense (it means you felt you should apologise to other people for what he/ <S> she is/did/does). <S> In almost all relevant contexts, it's probably obvious who we're feeling apologetic towards, so it's my opinion that people often don't bother trying to specify the person - partly because it's redundant, and partly because (like OP) they're unsure how to express it correctly (i.e. - with the "right" preposition). <A> Apologetic <S> *This section was rewritten based on comments and other answers. <S> John was apologetic. <S> In the previous sentence, I would understand that John said "I'm sorry" more than once, or at least wanted to. <S> John was an apologetic. <S> This uses a different meaning of "apologetic", which you don't want ("To Argue For or Defend a Position"). <S> John was apologetic toward Mary. <S> This doesn't sound very idiomatic. <S> It is understandable, but "John was apologetic to Mary" would be much more common. <S> John felt apologetic toward Mary. <S> This version sounds less idiomatic than the version using "was". <S> Empathy <S> Both "I felt bad for him" and "I felt sorry for him" are very idiomatic and sound natural, but they do carry an amount of empathy. <S> But, empathy is a scale, so perhaps they are near enough. <S> Here are a few examples ordered according to decreasing empathy. <S> When I saw him, I just couldn't go on. <S> When I saw him, part of me died inside. <S> When I saw him, I couldn't stand it. <S> I felt terrible for him. <S> I feel for him. <S> I felt bad for him. <S> I felt uncomfortable when I heard his story. <S> It bothered me a little to see him like that. <S> His conditions bothered me somewhat. <S> I felt like he deserved an apology. <S> I thought "c'est la vie", and walked on by. <S> I didn't feel any sympathy for him. <S> May he starve to death, that annoying nuisance. <S> edited given context: I would recommend one of the following: <S> I felt he was due an apology. <S> I felt sorry for him. <S> I felt he deserved an apology.
| I felt sorry for him.
|
What word is missing in this sentence? You yourself being a sportsperson […] know that sports is one of the few things that teaches discipline. The intended meaning of sentence should be the following: Since you are a sportsperson hence you must have already known that sports is one of the few things that teaches discipline. There must be something before know ; it's my gut feeling. I think it should be "must already," "already," or "would." <Q> It's not actually necessary to have any other word before "know", but there are a few points to make... <S> 1 <S> : OP's inclusion of yourself is grammatically irrelevant here (it just adds emphasis). <S> 2: So is the "parenthetical" phrase being a sportsman (which could be set off by commas). <S> The alternative "auxiliary" verbs that could optionally go before <S> know can carry different implications... <S> A: <S> ought to, should, etc. <S> - which [may] imply that the speaker believes/expects you to know. <S> B: <S> will, would, must, etc. <S> [or nothing ] - which imply the speaker knows that you know. <S> C: <S> may, might, etc. - which imply the speaker thinks it's possible <S> that you know. <S> For what it's worth, I'll just say that idiomatically probably will is most likely for OP's exact intended meaning. <S> This may seem a little odd to non-native speakers (why say you will know , when what you mean is <S> you <S> do know ?) <S> All I can say is native speakers habitually use "future tense" in such statements. <S> The possibility of including already is a separate issue. <S> Semantically it adds very little, and it wouldn't normally be there unless the speaker specifically wanted to emphasise previously-acquired knowledge affecting present/future actions (i.e. - "You already know it, so I won't bother to explain it [again] now ). <A> "Know" works in context. <S> There are different kinds of "knowing". <S> You might know something because of years of careful study, like "Jack knows quantum physics better than Heisenberg. <S> " You might know by intuition or common sense, like "You know that young people fall in love. <S> " If you think that "know" only applies to the careful-study kind of knowing: No, it doesn't. <S> It is readily understood to mean either kind (and other kinds of knowing). <S> I think most readers would assume from the context that "know" here refers to knowledge gained from personal experience, or possibly from intuition. <S> When it's really necessary to distinguish, I don't know of a single, commonly-used word that could be substituted. <S> You'd have to either use an obscure word or use a phrase to clarify. <S> Life if you wanted to make clear that Jack's knowledge of physics in fact does not come from years of study but that he just somehow seems to have an intuition about these things, you would say, "Jack knows quantum physics by intuition" or some such. <S> " You might say, "You intuit that sports teaches discipline" if you insist on using a single word, but that just sounds awkward to me. <S> As I say, I think most readers would take it for granted that you meant knowledge gained from experience or observation, especially with the "as a sportsman" stuck on the front. <S> If your intent was that he knows this because he is read studies in psychology journals of research demonstrating this, then you would need different words to make that clear. <A> I would suggest: As a sportsperson, you know that sports is one of the few things that teaches discipline.
| In your case, you could say, "You know from experience that sports teaches discipline" or "You have seen that sports teaches discipline.
|
What's the diffence between "I want you to go to sleep" and "I want you going to sleep" Are the following two sentences correct? I want you to go to sleep. and I want you going to sleep. If they are both correct, what's the difference? <Q> The first sentence is correct. <S> I can imagine just about anyone saying this in the proper context: <S> I want you to go to sleep. <S> The second sentence is gramatically incorrect: <S> I want you going to sleep. <S> There are grammatical rules regarding which verbs can be followed by infinitives, gerunds, or both. <S> The desire has a future meaning in the sense that the fulfillment of the desire must occur in the future. <S> However, in the second (incorrect) sentence, the verb "want" requires an infinitive ("to verb" such as to sleep, to play, etc), not a gerund ("verb-ing" such as sleeping, etc). <S> The following are some good resources on this topic: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/329/when-should-a-verb-be-followed-by-a-gerund-instead-of-an-infinitive <S> https://www.google.com/search?q=want+requires+infinitive . <S> A Rule-Based Method of Teaching Gerund vs. Infinitive Complements <S> (Benjamin Taylor, Virginia Tech Language and Culture Institute). <S> This is also succinctly summarized in this YouTube Video: A Rule for When to Use an Infinitive by Benjamin Taylor. <S> Is the second sentence comprehensible in some sense? <S> Yes. <S> But so is the incorrect sentence <S> , "I wanting you to going to sleeping." <S> It's not standard English, and an English language learner should stay far away from using the second sentence form. <S> I stand by the above prescriptive standard and advice. <S> There's no grammatical source that supports any phrase in the form of "I want you gerund to infinitive ." <S> Furthermore, Google NGRAM and corpora at corpus.byu.edu show extremely limited usage of this even as a non-standard usage. <S> However, I will likely follow up with this on linguistics.se and will update this answer with a cross-reference when I do so. <A> I can only imagine three people who would say "I want you to go to sleep" -- an anaesthetist, a hypnotist, and a parent. <S> The first two plan to act directly to bring about the state of affairs that they "want". <S> In the case of a parent speaking to a child, the words "I want you to" are simply padding placed around the real instruction <S> "Go to sleep!". <S> The expression <S> "I want you going to sleep [in a specified state] <S> " might be used by a doctor or other therapist who is recommending a change in your past practice such as "before you are too tired", "absolutely exhausted", "completely satisfied" or "without taking a sedative". <S> If used alone (as you have quoted it), then I believe it is a regional spoken variant that would not be used in standard written English. <A> "I want you" can be followed by an -ing form, but it is unusual. <S> To me it implies that the speaker is expecting to remain in control of the whole situation, not simply requesting an action. <S> Fortiter's suggestion of a doctor is consistent with this: the doctor is looking after the whole situation of which your going to sleep is a part. <S> Similarly: I want you to go to the bank. <S> is a normal request, but I want you going to the bank. <S> means that the speaker is setting up a situation as part of which you are to go to the bank. <S> For normal circumstances, always prefer the <S> I want you to form.
| The first (correct) sentence acts as a present tense statement of a desire at the time of the utterance.
|
Meaning of "rape" in "Rape of Nanking" Someone used "the rape in Nanking" rather than "the rape of Nanking", and I want to explain why it's the latter, but I don't fully understand the phrase myself! What was the meaning of the word "rape" in the phrase "Rape of Nanking"? Wiktionary gives several related meanings for the word, including seizing by force, or plundering destroying and despoiling, as well as forced sex. Which of these meanings was intended? <Q> Within this context, that is exactly what happened to Nanking in 1937. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre <S> A synonym for "rape" is "violate." <S> When a city is systematically violated by enemy soldiers (in the economic sense), it may be said to be "raped." <S> But such a large-scale violation of a city involves the actual rape of a large number of its women, practically by definition. <S> Soldiers that are allowed to loot and murder by their officers usually do not "abstain" just because a potential victim is a woman. <A> The Rape of Nanking (a.k.a. Nanking Massacre ) was a mass murder and a war rape happened in the city of Nanking . <S> War rape could means sexual rape or a situation where girls and women are forced into prostitution or sexual slavery by an occupying power. <S> As for why it is Rape of Nanking , of is the preposition that is usually used in such cases. <S> It is similar to Massacre of Glencoe , Massacre of Vassy , or Massacre of Thessalonica . <S> Of is used after nouns formed from verbs; the noun after of can be either the object or the subject of the action. <S> In these case, what follows massacre of is the name of a town whose inhabitants has been massacred. <A> If the person was talking about a single rape incident during the massacre, then in would be a correct preposition. <S> However, when referring to an entire incident of systematic war crimes and atrocities committed against a particular region and its populace – than of is more fitting. <S> The fact that a rather famous book was entitled The Rape of Nanking might make of a more familiar preposition. <S> If I heard the phrase "the rape of Xanadu," then I would assume the speaker was referring to either the rape of a person named Xanadu, or the rape of a city named Xanadu. <S> In the latter case, I would assume that we are not talking about a few isolated cases of rape, but much more widespread plundering along with violence of horrific proportions. <S> When the word rape is applied to a city, the word implies an entire city has been victimized, not just a few individuals in it.
| A "rape" of a city involves an orgy of arson, looting, killing, and yes, rape.
|
What does "in turn" mean here? Is it correct that in turn means the opposite ? For example, how should I understand in turn in the sentence given below? Even given the desire of the poorer nations for greater autonomy, many of their needs can only be satisfied via the productive capacity of the developed nations; the developed nations, in turn , will have to find new markets for their product if they are to revive their faltering economies. <Q> Wiktionary shows four senses: One after the other; one at a time; in succession; successively In due order; in proper sequence; in a determined or measured sequence, as a waiting line or queue <S> In response; in return [eg] <S> The musical ambassadors finished their performance, and the local musicians in turn played for them a traditional ballad Having a relationship sequentially comparable to one just mentioned; accordingly or similarly, with respect to sequence, precedence, or hierarchy. <S> None of those senses really apply in the quoted passage. <S> There is no sequence, no before and after, no in-response or in-return relationship between the stated sets of needs. <S> (Which are, on the one hand, the poorer nations' needs for goods produced in developed nations, and on the other, the needs of developed countries to find new markets to revive faltering economies.) <S> It is true that the two sets of needs complement each other, but it is not true that they are related “in turn”. <S> In short, the phrase is inappropriate and has been misused. <S> Edit: <S> Transitional phrases that could be used here (in place of “in turn”) include “for their part”, “on the other hand”, “by contrast”, etc. <S> A problem with the original text – <S> Even given the desire of the poorer nations for greater autonomy, many of their needs can only be satisfied via the productive capacity of the developed nations; the developed nations, in turn, will have to find new markets for their product if they are to revive their faltering economies. <S> – is that it confusingly conflates its notions. <S> If poor nations need products from developed nations, then there is a market for those products. <S> Treating of whether the market is new, whether the developed-nation economy is faltering, whether the poor nation seeks autonomy – all that would be better done in separate sentences. <A> That's to say, the metaphorical "turn" here is a "pivot", with things balanced on either side. <A> In turn means "then" or "as a result" For example: <S> Thus showing that love can cause foolish and weird behavior, which in turn causes the relationship to end.
| No, in turn does not mean the opposite . In this context, in turn should be understood as meaning in return or in their turn .
|
What is the texture of a fruit which is not hard/fresh anymore? When I pick up an apple from the garden, it is rather hard. If I then wait for 2 weeks, it becomes _ _ _ , which means it is not hard anymore, and not as tasty because the food's texture has changed. What is the word I am looking for here? (this kind of texture, preferably not just for food) In French I would say mou , in Japanese 柔らかい . But the proposed translations "soft" and "pliable" do not seem to convey the concept. <Q> At this point the fruit has become too ripe , or overripe . <S> This is what literally describes fruits/vegetables that have sat around too long and are no longer at the peak of taste and texture, as you describe. <S> Note that some fruits (such as peaches) are soft even when properly ripe, so you might be careful which words you use depending on the fruit in question. <S> Though you did mention you wanted words not just for foods, so perhaps that won't be a problem. <A> A fruit that has lost its hardness and its freshness is one that has become mushy. <S> That is, soft and bland-tasting, not crisp. <A> Someone from Britain might say: "The apple's gone manky ". <S> Which would mean it has become rotten and inedible. <S> Perhaps too harsh a word for only a two-week-old fruit, but "manky" lends itself not only to food but to other objects: clothes, shoes, tissues, teeth etc. <S> To describe the apple's soft floury flesh we can say: mealy .
| Some adjectives that may be used to describe overly ripe fruit, and which could also be used for objects with similar physical characteristics, might be soft , squishy , mushy , and similar words.
|
When to use "wherein" instead of "where"? I've came across the word "wherein", and I'm doubtful about how different it is from using just plain "where". For example in this sentence: There is a case, though, wherein you can use the aforementioned property. Is there any difference in meaning if I use "where"? <Q> Not only is wherein a more archaic term, but it actually has a different meaning than where . <S> It means "in which" , and is primarily used as a flowery term evoking legal language, or a fancy or pretentious-sounding table of contents in a book. <S> (e.g. "Chapter 2: Wherein Christopher Robin Meets a Heffalump and Pooh Does Not") <S> The grammatically correct substitution for wherein is "in which". <S> Replacing wherein with where is one of those cases that is probably incorrect in a technical sense, but it's used enough that people will understand you and it won't sound unnatural. <S> I am not 100% sure of the etymology, but there is some similarity between some of the archaic English terms like wherein and wherefore , and German terms like worin and wofür . <S> The wo- <S> terms blindly translate as "where" + a preposition, but the actual correct translation for the wo -prefix is that preposition + "which <S> ". <S> I suspect that the blind translation of the German wo- prefix into the English where- <S> prefix is how we got these terms. <S> See this English. <S> SE question on whereof/wherein/wherefrom/whereupon/wherewith/wherefore . <A> Wherein means "in which place, situation or thing; in what way. <S> " It is a formal word that is almost equivalent to where . <S> an organization wherein each employee is valued and respected an organization where each employee is valued and respected <A> Sorry, they're not interchangeable. " <S> You can properly say "I threw the football to my son where my buddy threw a baseball to his son". <S> You can't use "wherein" there. <S> Similarly, if you say "a computer system rendering images where the processor used a jpeg format". <S> This does not necessarily imply that the processor wasn't in another computer system processing another image. <S> Here, the term "wherein" would necessarily mean that the processor was in the preceding computer system.
| wherein" refers to a preceding context and "where" does not.
|
Differences between branch, twig, and bough Could someone explain to me the differences in meaning between those words: branch , twig , and bough ? For me they look very similar. Picture would be very helpful. :) <Q> I use the word twig when I'm talking about something rather small, something small enough that I could pick it up using only a finger and my thumb. <S> The word branch is more flexible; I'd use that for anything much bigger than a twig, all the way up to something so large I'd have to drag it across the ground to move it. <S> When I'm building a fire, I use twigs and broken branches as kindling, before I put the logs on the fire. <S> Notice <S> how this news story refers to a tree "branch" for the limb in this picture: <S> As I said in my comment in another answer, I rarely hear the word bough used in everyday conversation. <S> There are trees; trees have branches, and the small ends of the branches are twigs. <A> In order of sizes, smallest to largest: Twigs, branches, boughs and then trunk. <S> Twigs are the smallest branches <S> Twig : <S> A small branch or division of a branch (especially a terminal division). <S> Branch : <S> A division of a stem, or secondary stem arising from the main stem of a plant <S> Bough : <S> Any of the larger branches of a tree <S> Branches are where twigs originate. <S> Prunus Twig <S> (credits: Wikimedia ) <S> Ivy Branch <S> (Credits: GraphicsSoft ) <S> I couldn't find a satisfying image for boughs. <S> Sorry about that. <A> The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary has a picture of a tree with vocabulary. " <S> Bough" is lacking, though. <S> Probably because bough /bau/ is mainly literary for branch . <A> I would say you need several hands to wrap around a bough, and it does not really refer to the off shoots (usually branches) from it. <S> A branch can be as big as a bough but also a lot smaller. <S> It also refers to the off shouts. <S> A twig will have few if any off shouts, a finger can wrap around it and would be easy to snap or bend. <S> While on the plant people usually don't refer to the twigs but the branch it is on, however they do describe plants or branches as twiggy. <S> There are a hoard of other words used to describe the limbs and sticks of and from trees and other plants, depending on various qualities like suppleness. <S> This purely comes from my personal experience. <A> I think there's no real difference of meaning and use between branch and bough but the origin of each word. <S> According to its etymology bough refers to shoulder (or the beginning of the arm from the shoulder). <S> So it can be considered that a bough is a "branch" starting from the trunk but not really when they are speaking about.
| In general, twigs are where leaves and flowers bud from.
|
Pejorative form of flourish In a written paper, my teacher pointed out a mistake I made, which was using ... problems which flourish .. Apparently problems can't flourish , I forgot to ask why but I'm assuming because flourish has a positive connotation. So my question is: What is the pejorative counterpart to the word flourish (which would be appropriate for my example of course)? <Q> Personally, I don't think using 'problems that flourish' is actually bad here. <S> I would actually use it in non-work writing. <S> But she is correct that it is a positive word. <S> Maybe you can use 'proliferate': which means to increase quickly and is more negative. <S> If you can include more of the sentence I can tell you if that would fit well.. <A> The word flourish means to grow, spread, or develop in a prosperous way. <S> So you wouldn't say a problem is flourishing, unless you are saying that the problem spreading is a good thing (or maybe telling the story from the problem's point of view as the protagonist — grin ). <S> A few suggestions: infecting, permeating, contaminating, infiltrating. <S> But you can also change the context a bit by describing the causal effect on the city — hurting, plaguing, distressing, troubling, poisoning — in a way that take it away from trying to make the act of spreading pejorative. <A> A problem that continues to get worse over time until it is dealt with could be described as festering (sense 2: to putrefy or rot).
| You need a word that suggests something is spreading, but in a negative (or at least neutral) way.
|
The logic behind present perfect/infinitive + present perfect May I ask what the logic is behind using present perfect/infinitive + present perfect in "present perfect + since + present perfect" sentences? it has been a while since I have enjoyed a party this much. and It's been a long time since I have read an interesting book. Why is it not present perfect + past simple? I understand the "it's been" part, since it's something that is still relevant or going on. But if I'm referring to a specific past event, why should present perfect even be considered? 2) Also, I've seen people replace infinitive forms with present perfects: "You must be surprised to receive a letter from me" = "You must be surprised to have received a letter from me" Is there such thing as an infinitive present perfect? How is this construction possible? Please help me understand! <Q> It's been a long time since I have read an interesting book. <S> "Why is it not present perfect + past simple? <S> I understand the "it's been" part, since it's something that is still relevant or going on. <S> But if I'm referring to a specific past event, why should present perfect <S> even be considered?" <S> I was reading your statement, and began thinking. <S> And although Hellion is correct when he said: "in both of the sample sentences, you're not referring to a specific past event , but to a somewhat generic experience; you can say "It's been a long time since I have read an interesting book", but you shouldn't say "It's been a long time since I have read The Hobbit". <S> He forgot a detail. <S> What if the last time I had read an interesting book was indeed at a specific past event, for example, last month? <S> Hence a completed action, my reading an interesting book, at a definite time in the past. <S> Could a person then say: " <S> It's been a long time since I read (simple past) an interesting book." <S> I believe the answer is yes. <S> Here is another example taken verbatim from "A Practical English Grammar" (A.J.Thomson A.V.Martinet): <S> " I've worked here since I left school" <S> Which means I have finished attending school (for whatever reason but the most plausible being I have graduated or taken my final year exams) and now I am working <S> i.e. I am not a student any more but currently an employee. <A> The logic behind the constructions given in point 1 is that the present perfect is being used to express an experience: at some point in the past, you had the experience of enjoying a party, or of reading an interesting book. <S> Now, in the present, you are stating that it has been a long time since you experienced those things. <S> In both of the sample sentences, you're not referring to a specific past event, but to a somewhat generic experience; you can say "It's been a long time since I have read an interesting book", but you shouldn't say "It's been a long time since I have read The Hobbit ". <S> For point 2, the present perfect is being used to describe a change of condition: at some point in the recent past you changed from the state of "no letter received" to "letter received". <S> For the specific example given (surprise), I'm inclined to say that such a construction is wrong; surprise is a reaction to a current situation, so by definition, something that happened to you in the past (even the recent past) does not surprise you in the present. <S> On the other hand, for the general case, combining an expression regarding our current condition with information about what happened to cause it is entirely natural: I have found $20 in my pocket. <S> (present perfect: I found it just a few seconds or minutes ago) <S> I am happy because I have found $20 in my pocket. <S> (simple present status, with present perfect cause of that status) <S> Other examples <S> : I am happy to have caught up with you. <S> We are sorry that you have decided to leave. <S> You must be proud that your son has been accepted to Yale. <A> Don't look for "logic" in this construction. <S> It is a pattern dating back to at least the middle of the 17th century, a time when since was used in many more ways than it is today. <S> John Dryden himself, one of the key figures in the 'rationalization' of English into its modern form, had no compunction about using both the simple past and past perfect form in the same sentence ! <S> … ’tis now three Years since I Have heard from him, and since I saw him twelve. <S> - The Rival Ladies ,1664 <S> The language has evolved since then, but this remains as a fossil. <S> It's just the way (or one way) we say this. <S> Yes, the perfect infinitive, HAVE INFINITIVE + past participle, is an established and completely noncontroversial construction. <S> You use it, in fact, every time you compose an ordinary future perfect, which is formally <S> will + [perfect infinitive]: <S> I will have finished it by noon. <S> There, to be sure, you use a 'bare' (unmarked) infinitive; but if instead of a full modal like will you use a verb which requires a marked infinitive <S> the structure is clear: <S> I plan to have finished it by noon.
| It is grammatically correct and makes sense.
|
When is the suffix -tor and -ter used? Can someone help me in understanding the suffix -tor and -ter ? I am not able to understand it properly and I always mix the spelling like: "computor" when it should be computer "administrater" when it should be administrator <Q> As reflected in comments, there's no real "rule" here (though there's a tendency for -or to occur more often in words with Latin roots). <S> So basically, you just have to learn them. <S> But things aren't as bad as they appear. <S> Not only is the -er form more common in <S> established words <S> - it's far more <S> "productive" for new terms . <S> Also, as RegDwight points out in this ELU answer on the subject, there are many words where either spelling is acceptable (adviser/advisor, convener/convenor, etc.). <S> So instead of having to learn every word separately, all you have to do is remember those where only -or is acceptable (which as of today, includes administrator ). <S> In short, slow as it might be, the general trend is towards -er . <S> Adopt that as your default, and with any luck by the time you need one of today's more obscure "-or - only" words, the -er form will be acceptable! <S> EDIT: <S> As @Anixx correctly points out, strictly speaking there is no currently productive suffix -ter in Modern English ( <S> the only instances where it's recognized as a meaningful "morphemic element" are laughter ::laugh and slaughter ::slay ). <S> This question and answer address <S> the -or / -er distinction. <A> There is no suffix -ter- in English. <S> If the 't' is part of the root, then English uses the suffix -er . <S> Note that the suffixes have different origin. <S> The suffix -er also was borrowed from Latin but from Latin suffix -ari- <S> ( -arius with the ending). <S> There are also English words with suffix <S> -ster <S> as in hipster, youngster. <S> It was initially a feminine suffix. <S> They should not be confused with the first two. <S> There are also some words inherited from PIE which had the -ter- suffix in PIE <S> but in English it became a part of the root ("daughter" for instance). <A> There is also a usage trend to use - tor when the intent is to emphasize that the agent is a person, while - ter is used when the agent is not necessarily a person. <S> For example, ‘compu tor ’ the original term meaning a person performing computationlater becoming ‘compu ter ’ when calculations were performed by either people or machines. <S> Following a transition period where either word was used for either meaning; computer is now commonly understood to mean a machine.
| If 't' is not a part of the root, then English uses Latin suffix -tor- .
|
Word for a job with frequent location changes Which adjective word can I use to describe my friend's father's military job in which he need to frequently resettle in a new place after every 2-3 years? <Q> (I think transient implies something less structured than a military position – when I hear 'transient worker' , I think of something more along the lines of migrant agricultural work, and not something associated with a larger entity like a federal government.) <S> I'm not sure there's a single adjective that accurately expresses the sentiment you're after. <S> Words such as unsteady are even more misleading than transient . <S> and leave it at that. <A> I know. <S> None of the below are adjectives. <S> The only appropriate adjective, transient, has already been suggested by J.R <S> I know. <S> I have <S> not answered the OP question. <S> However, these are all expressions which can be used to talk about any person or any family that often moves to a different town or location. <S> I think they are useful to know. <S> to be frequently relocated to be (constantly) on the move to be often transferred to have no fixed abode to be temporarily based to flit from one town to another to have temporary lodgings <A> You could consider the adjective itinerant , meaning "traveling from place to place." <S> However, to my ear it has a slight connotation of unreliability, as if the person wasn't successful in any one place for long and was forced to move on. <S> Requires frequent moves is probably safest, and easiest to understand.
| I'd be inclined to say: It's a job that requires frequent moves. There's the word transient , but I wouldn't use that to describe a military job.
|
"At this time" vs. "at that time" vs. "at the point of time" What is the difference between "at this time", "at that time" and "at the point of time"? In what cases should we use these phrases? Could you give me examples? <Q> They're all just roundabout ways of saying things we usually do in a single word... <S> at this time = <S> now at that time = <S> then at the point of time <S> = <S> when I don't much like at the point of time . <S> Obviously, I normally use <S> when anyway, <S> but it's usually at the point in time <S> if I have to use the longer form. <S> Except in "scientific" contexts like at the point of time <S> T <S> (that's almost 7000 of them in Google Books). <S> I don't mind that usage so much, but I really don't like this type One, therefore, arrives at the position where, if there were successive partial losses which are unrepaired at the point of time when the cover terminates, the measure of indemnity has to be assessed by reference to the depreciation at that time. <S> Here's a chart showing that in has been standard usage for decades... <S> The shift in preference is far more marked than the chart would suggest. <S> The vast majority of modern usages are that "scientific" context. <S> Most of the rest are (like my fully-quoted example) <S> legal contexts. <S> Unless you're writing scientific or legal texts, my advice is don't use any of these long-winded phrasings. <S> And if you have to refer to the point , it's in time unless you're talking about a specific time <S> T on a graph. <A> From here: at this time = right now. <S> at that time = in the future/past. <S> at the point of time is not really idiomatic, but looks like it might mean a very specific moment. <A> "At this time" seems to be an overused qualifier for public officials. <S> One often sees it in the news. <S> In most cases it's totally unnecessary. <A> "At this point in time" and its relatives have been so mindlessly over-used, especially by government functionaries in England, that the late Gavin Lyall mocked the tendency in The Crocus List , one of his too-few Harry Maxim novels: George snorted. <S> "Not with that old blatherskite in command. <S> And that's why I don't want to become too official at this point... <S> " Since he found it difficult to be unofficial without sounding more official than usual, he almost added "in time" but stopped himself, in time. <S> Generally speaking <S> you'll be better-off if you follow FumbleFingers's advice: <S> substitute "now", "then", or "when" as appropriate. <S> Your writing will be crisper and more readable. <A> You add zero information by using them. " <S> At that time" or "at that point" are all the information needed. <S> John Dean was one of the first people to use "point in time" during his testimony at the Watergate hearings. <S> I'd give him a pass on its use, since he was under tremendous stress. <S> But there's no reason to use extra words that convey no information. <S> I admit that I'm a former editor who believes that shorter sentences are important for readability. <S> Whether you talk or write, you want the listener or reader to pay attention. <S> Adding useless words is always counter to goals of a speaker or writer.
| The phrases "at that point in time" or "at that point of time" are both redundancies.
|
How would "Have a good one." be understood in this context? I was replying to somebody who said to be going to eat something and rest, and said "Have a good one." I was not understood, and asked what I meant by that. Isn't "have a good one" used instead of "have a good afternoon" or "have a good evening"? Even if that is not the standard meaning, should not the phrase be understood as "have a good eat" or "have a good rest" at least in the context I used it? <Q> It could also be used in this context: <S> Do you want to get together on Saturday? <S> No, Saturday is my birthday, and my husband is taking me out. <S> Oh! <S> Well, have a good one. <S> In that case, "Have a good one," could mean mean, "Have a good time," or, "Have a good birthday," or, "I hope you have a nice date. <S> " There's a decent chance it means a little bit of all three. <S> If I told you, "I'm going to grab something to eat, and then I'm going to lay down and rest," <S> and you said, "Have a good one," I'd assume you meant, "Have a nice rest," or, "Have a good nap. <S> " I'd regard it as simple well-wishing. <S> It may be informal speech, but I wouldn't press you for an explanation. <S> I'd probably just say, "Thanks," or maybe, "Thanks, I will." <A> This phrase is a greeting and basically means "goodbye". <S> There is an entry for it in <S> The Free Dictionary (which groups it with "Have a nice day" and similar phrases), where it is defined thus: Cliché <S> an expression said when parting or saying good-bye. <S> It can be confusing because in many cases it doesn't make sense when taken literally <S> (see this article , for example). <A> It depends how it is said. <S> Tone. <S> What was said before it. <S> Take into account who you are talking to. <S> Where you are. <S> The history with certain people or groups of people. <S> All races and Creed's. <S> How often it is said. <S> Whether or not you would say it. <S> Since there are many variables at play, including body language. <S> Many times it is meant as a ordinary goodbye. <S> However, if in the wrong scenario, it can bother you. <S> Sometimes, this can be picked up on. <S> Almost used as a way to say f-off by some. <S> All-in-all, I don't like the phrase. <S> I also don't say it. <S> I also try not to respond. <S> I usually say thanks and leave. <S> Sometimes, I just leave.
| It's context-dependent. When used as a farewell, it's usually interpreted to mean, "Have a good day," or, "Have a good evening," or (on Fridays), "Have a good weekend."
|
Highlight that action was done for sure What is the correct way to highlight that the action was done for sure? I did wrote that document I did write that document The options are similar to how we highlight action in present: we say "I do work!" But I'm not sure how to say it in the past. Thanks in advance. <Q> Did plus past tense is NEVER correct <A> As others have already pointed out, <S> I did wrote (or indeed, any past tense verb) is never correct. <S> But it's also worth mentioning that <S> I did [ <S> infinitive without "to"] is an archaic construction. <S> Except when it's being used for emphasis. <S> The stress is normally on the word <S> did - emphasising that you actually performed the action (usually, when contradicting someone who's suggested that maybe you didn't ), but in some cases the stress may fall on the ("to-less" infinitive) verb... <S> I did <S> write to him, but I never actually checked to see if he received my letter . <S> (if write is stressed, probably it will be in contrast to another verb which will also be stressed). <S> If you can't naturally imagine heavy stress on either did or the verb following, you don't want <S> did at all. <A> Depends on what you are highlighting - the fact that you "did" something, or the fact that you "wrote" something. <S> Use of both verbs is un-necessary, and sounds petulant in both spoken and written English. <S> The statmement: <S> I *wrote* that document. <S> is both succinct and declarative. <S> Alternately, <S> I *did* that. is also declarative, but less definitive of what you did - unless there is a context already in play.
| I did write that document is completely correct and emphasizes the fact that you wrote it or you already wrote it depending on where you stress the sentence.
|
Dr. X's assistant or Dr. X assistant? I don't know how to introduce myself in e-mails, am I Dr X's assistant or Dr. X assistant? <Q> Use the possessive form: Dr. X's assistant . <S> You could also turn it around and say it without the possessive: an assistant to Dr. X . <A> You are Dr Smith's assistant in almost all cases. <S> If his name ends in s, you may be Dr Jones' assistant or Dr Jones's assistant depending on the style you and Dr Jones prefer. <A> Doctor X possesses an assistant (well, he doesn't own you , but he owns your services as his assistant, so the possession stands). <S> As such, you use the 's to denote <S> said possession: <S> The meaning conveyed is I am the/an assistant working with Dr. X . <S> You might say that as well.
| I am Dr. X assistant.
|
Offering to do something without using "shall" What can I substitute " shall " with in these sentences to sound less formal? You look cold. Shall I put the heater on? What shall I bring you, tea or coffee? <Q> When used in this context as an auxiliary verb it is less formal than " shall ", but the meaning is nearly the same and the sentence would need little to no other changes. <S> You look cold. <S> Should <S> I put the heater on? <S> What <S> should I bring you, tea or coffee? <S> This worksheet should help to learn more about the similarities and differences between " shall " and " should ". <S> Alternatively, you could use a phrase to replace " shall " and restructure the sentence a bit to retain more of the original meaning. <S> For example: You look cold. <S> Would you like me to put the heater on? <A> "Shall" is very uncommon in American English, and is considered very formal when it is used. <S> I believe it is much more common and has less implication of formality in Britain. <S> So first consider your audience, it may be that "shall" would be just fine if you're in the UK. <S> In America, you could use any of these in informal situations: <S> Should I put the heater on? <S> Do you want [me to put] the heater on? <S> Would you like [me to put] the heater on? <S> Can I put the heater on for you? <A> Just to add further, and more informal alternatives to Walter's answer. <S> You could say to a friend: <S> You look cold. <S> Do you fancy the heating on? <S> ( very informal ) <S> You look cold. <S> Do you want the heating on? <S> ( informal ) <S> You look cold. <S> Would you like the heating on? <S> ( less formal ) <S> and: Fancy a cup of tea? <S> ( very informal ) <S> What <S> / How about <S> a nice cup of tea or coffee? <S> ( informal ) <S> Would you like tea or coffee? <S> ( less formal )
| " Should " is likely the best candidate for your purposes.
|
You're a selfish, aren't you? You're a selfish, aren't you? Is this grammatically correct, and is it how a native speaker would say it? The context is that person A continually acts in a selfish way, and now another person B (a friend or colleague) who has been around him for a long time asks this question in a situation where person A says something selfish. <Q> "a" implies a noun, e.g. "person," "woman," "worker." <S> "You are a selfish [type of person]" would work, e.g. "You're a selfish man, aren't you?" <S> If you do not want to use a noun ( <S> because, for example, you don't know what kind of person they are because you are talking over the internet) <S> you can instead write " <S> You're selfish, aren't you?" <A> As already pointed out, it's not grammatically correct. <S> However, I could see someone saying it in this fashion if they were upset enough to call someone out on their behavior but didn't want to use an explicit insult. <S> That is, normally the word I would expect following "selfish" would be an epithet such as git , bastard , or bitch . <S> If the speaker didn't want to use such an insulting word directly, they might just leave it out and let it be implied. <A> It's not gramatically correct, and I don't think a native speaker would say that, even if it were fixed. <S> It comes across as somewhat rude, but not particularly forceful because of the question. <S> If someone was annoyed enough to call someone out for being selfish, he probably wouldn't phrase it in such a way. <S> First of all, to fix up the grammar, one would say, "You're selfish, aren't you? <S> " <S> The extra " a " in there is extraneous. <S> But, as I said before, phrasing this as a question sends mixed signals. <S> You're showing your annoyance by calling someone selfish, but weakening your statement by turning it into a question. <S> In real-life, a person would probably say something like " <S> You're selfish," or "You're being selfish," or "Why are you so selfish?" <S> But he wouldn't put the "aren't you?" <S> part at the end.
| This is not gramatically correct, no.
|
"The story can / could be true." A native speaker said to me that this sentence is not correct with can, I have to use could. The story can could be true. He said that if a story can be true, it means that it is true. But if I'm not sure and I want to encode uncertanty I have to use could . But I think that any story is potentially true or not, it may turn out to be either way, so it actually can have this property to be true. I also know that this sentence is correct: The weather is nice but it can change later. So if the weather can change when we are not sure that it will happen, so that the story can be true, when we are not sure that it is. Can you settle this dispute? <Q> The story can be true. <S> This sentence is grammatical, but probably doesn't mean what you think. <S> In the examples I can think of, it indicates a possibility that the the truth of the story can change: <S> Please tell me a story. <S> The story can be true, or it can be made up. <S> or You spend the rest of your days living leisurely on a beach. <S> This story can be true, if you invest with Invesco(tm) today! <S> If you just heard a story and want to express your uncertainty about its truth, you could say John told me he won the lottery. <S> This story might be true. <S> It is equally common in my experience to use <S> could here, John told me he won the lottery. <S> This story could be true. <S> A strict grammarian might say that this version actually implies some kind of conditional on the truth, like, "the story could be true, if he would turn in his lottery ticket," but this implication is usually ignored. <S> The weather is nice but it can change later. <S> This example is correct, but again could would be more common here. <S> Edit: <S> According to a note in my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary , " Can expresses primarily positive power of acting...". <S> That is, can expresses a will to do something in addition to the ability or possibility to do it. <S> This is why the word doesn't work well with subjects like "the story" or "the weather": These abstract subjects don't have a will of their own. <A> The story can be true, or it can be made up. <S> "Can" is a bit more informal, for example, people will persist in saying "Can I have one of those?" <S> in spite of being corrected to "May I have one of those?" <S> by their teachers when young. <S> The point is in this case we are talking about what is allowed, and that is "may". <S> Can in the formal sense denotes an absolute ability. <S> Could denotes a conditional ability. <S> So, "stories can be true" because some stories ARE true, but "this particular story could be true" because it might be true and might not be. <A> The difference is in the time. <S> This story either is or isn't true, but you don't know which. <S> In such a case, you cannot use can . <S> The weather is going to change in the future, and in this case you can use can . <S> Wrong: <S> * <S> I don't know where John is. <S> I suppose he can have gone to the supermarket. <S> Use <S> could, may, or might .
| Generally, sticklers will say that it is more correct to say "The story may be true, or it may be made up."
|
Paint vs Draw Difference in meaning What are the differences between 'to paint' and 'to draw' when we are talking about arts? As I guess draw refers to pictures in pencil or pen and paint to watercolor pictures or something. I need to clarify these things. :) <Q> You're right: <S> drawing is dry (e.g. using a pencil or pen), painting needs paint and a brush. <S> From here , compare a drawing: with a painting: <A> I am a student at the Academy of Fine Art, in the final year, and this is what we are taught:Drawings are made by using LINES, and paintings are done by using SMUDGES or STAINS. <S> You can use a paint brush dipped in oil color on canvas, but if you use only lines as a main form it will still be considered a drawing. <S> Likewise, you can use pastels and crayons, but if you smudge them so the boundaries are not easily discerned, it would be considered as a painting. <S> For example, we consider Egon Schileler as a drawing master, and Marc Chagal as a painter. <S> When on the academy you can easily discern a graphic artist from a painter to a sculptor by basically looking at their nude study drawings, with the same method, charcoal on paper. <S> The painter will smudge the charcoal and make big surfaces with barely any lines (or no lines), a sculptor will make hard, sharp strokes like cutting with a knife (or a chisel), and a graphic artist will do thin, controled lines. <S> Like the previous comment said, the layers are also an important factor: drawings tend to have lesser layers, paintings more overlapping colors and layers. <A> Sketching : <S> Before a complete drawing we draw the sketch of the drawing, and we work freehand, meaning that we draw the multiple-cross lines and it lacks the details that a complete drawing may have. <S> Pencils, ink, and charcoal can be the medium through which sketching is done. <S> Sketching is done on low quality papers like newsprint, etc. <S> Drawing : Drawing means full art drawn using colored pencils, markers, graphite pencils, or pens to create a full picture by drawing single-pass lines that looks more neat and clean than free hand sketching. <S> Painting : In painting, multiple layers of colors are placed on each other (first background, then first layer of paint, then second, and so on) by use of brush and water- or oil-based paint. <S> A painting may look complete after finishing it but some paintings don’t seem too complete until the end of the process. <A> This is just my own definition differentiating a "painting" and a "drawing" so I could be wrong. <S> First, no matter the medium, drawings are primarily concerned with the outline and form of an object or subject while on the other hand, paintings additionally focuses on colors and texture. <S> Although there are instances where these overlap. <S> Second, lets look into the process of creating a painting and a drawing. <S> Drawings are done on one layer and usually start with the foreground first. <S> While on paintings, multiple layers of colors are placed on top of each other gradually and usually the artist starts with the background first. <S> Most people wont see the finished painting until the very end of the process, which is unlike drawing where the shape or form of the subject is seen almost immediately.
| Drawing is done on high quality papers like drawing paper, Bristol paper, etc.
|
"claim": What does this word actually mean in general context? Can anyone please help me explaining the weight of the word claim in general purpose sentences? For example, if I say I will claim the amount. Does it mean it is my right to get the amount, or it means that I may get the amount or may not? <Q> There is no "general context" meaning of the word; the word "claim" can have one of many meanings depending on its context. <S> As for your example: I will claim the amount. <S> The word "amount" suggests to me that money is involved, and therefore I can assume that the meaning is this one (as per dictionary.com ): to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a right or as due: to claim an estate by inheritance. <A> thefreedictionary.com: claim, definition 1: "To demand, ask for, or take as one's own or one's due" To claim something does not mean that you will get it or even that you are likely to get it, just that you are asserting that it is rightfully yours. <S> Whether you actually get it depends on whether others agree that your claim is valid, or you have the power to take it by force, etc. <S> I am reminded of an argument I saw on a web forum once. <S> At one point one of them claimed that the other's latest argument was flawed and then said, "I declare myself the winner of the debate. <S> " <S> The other replied, "Okay. <S> I declare myself emperor of the world and order your immediate execution. <S> " <S> Neither got what he wanted by simply claiming it. <A> The general meaning of claim is to state something to be true. <S> The claim that men are smarter than women is ridiculous. <S> This can be expanded, figuratively and implicitly to be stating that you have ownership of something. <S> I have claim [of ownership] on this land! <S> And by further extension, it can refer to the act of physically demonstrating said claim, as in your example: He claimed his winnings.
| Thus, if you claim an amount, you declare that you have a right to that amount.
|
What is the English term for "dousing yourself with cold water to build immunity" In russian, the word "обливаться" can be colloquially used to describe a specific recurring activity where you pour a container of cold water on a person with the goal of building up that person's immunity . I there an equivalent English idiom/short expression for such an activity? <Q> I can't think of an idiomatic expression specifically evocative of a repeated activity leading to "immunity", but for the more general case (which may be a one-off, repeated, and/or prolonged activity), it's... <S> toughen someone (up) - to make someone stronger and more able to deal with difficult situations <S> Here, for example, are as few thousand instances in Google Books of "toughened him up" . <S> If you look at a few, you'll see that although it's often used in contexts where the "toughening" refers to becoming more physically "robust" (stronger, better-toned muscles, etc.), it's also often used of "emotional" strength. <S> EDIT <S> I deleted the above answer when OP clarified that he was looking for an English expression for exactly the meaning being "toughened up" by <S> repeated exposure to cold water . <S> Obviously my answer doesn't get very close to that - as I said, it doesn't even imply <S> repeated , let alone cold water . <S> I've now undeleted it because although there may not be an exact answer, this one is at least "relevant". <S> But I will just say that I think it's unlikely there will be a short English term evocative of cold water and "positive" effects such as acquiring immunity/becoming stronger. <S> The reason I think it's unlikely is because any such usage would clash with a well-established idiom... <S> pour cold water on - to discourage doing something; to reduce enthusiasm for something. <S> (Alludes to cooling passion with cold water.) <A> Okay - here's another one that might turn up in "niche vocabularies", even if it's not used all that often... <S> cryotherapy - <S> the therapeutic use of cold ... <S> which could reasonably be combined with... <S> hydrotherapy - the therapeutic use of water <S> The above link has quite a lengthy definition, including "alternating hot and cold water can stimulate the circulatory system and improve the immune system " , so obviously hydrotherapy does actually cover OP's intended sense. <S> But combining the two prefixes gives the more specific, and [semi-]credible... <S> cryohydrotherapy <S> (no dictionary definition, obviously, but there are a few instances of it being used) <A> Since this is not a common practice among Anglophones, you will probably have to give some more details when you write or talk about "dousing". <S> There is an article in Wikipedia about dousing : <S> Dousing is the practice of making something or someone wet by throwing liquid over them, e.g., by pouring water, generally cold, over oneself. <S> A related practice is ice swimming. <S> Some consider cold water dousing to be a form of asceticism. <S> There's also a list of countries in this article where this activity is practiced. <A> This action could be described as conditioning .
| Actually, I think the English term for this activity will be "dousing" or "cold water dousing".
|
"You iron clothes if they are […]" These jeans are […], you need to iron it. After the washing machine, the clothes are […]. You have to iron them. What adjective would you fill in the gaps with? My dictionary gives me wrinkled , creased , rumpled , and crumpled . <Q> Based on Skymninge's response, there may be some UK/US difference here. <S> In the US, the word you are looking for would clearly be "wrinkled". <S> "Crumpled" means not neatly folded or hung, <S> like if you just threw them on the floor. <S> "Creased" can refer to any folds or ridges in the material, but is usually used to refer to a desired ridge. <S> On pants, that would be the creases down the front and back of the legs. <S> "Rumpled" is generally irregular and untidy. <S> I think it's a somewhat out-of-date word. <A> Wrinkled is more used for wrinkles on skin, crumpled is used for "crumpled look" clothing (clothes that are meant to look unironed), so this is the one you're searching for. <A> There's quite a lot of regional variation on this one, but here's the overall picture <S> I won't bother adding more charts, but if you follow the link above, and toggle between US/UK corpuses, you'll see that Brits still favour crumpled , but Americans have moved decisively in favour of wrinkled over recent decades. <S> By weight of numbers wrinkled is definitely the one with the most promising future. <S> In the context of clothes, wrinkled, crumpled, creased, rumpled, etc. <S> all mean exactly the same thing. <S> But note that trousers, for example, may occasionally be approvingly referred to as nicely creased when they've been ironed/pressed to make a sharp fold line exactly where it's wanted.
| In general: "Wrinkled" means having undesired, unordered lines, folds, or ridges in the material.
|
"She will be visiting" vs. "she will visit" When she goes to Mexico, she will be visiting Chichen Itza. When she goes to Mexico, she will visit Chichen Itza. Is there a particular difference in meaning, or it is just the matter of style? <Q> As other answers have indicated, the future progressive, as the term implies, can place emphasis on the ongoing nature of the future event. <S> In such contexts the future simple is not correct: <S> This time tomorrow I'll be lying (*I'll lie) on the beach. <S> Sorry, I won't be able to make it. <S> I'll be playing <S> (*I'll play) <S> tennis with Mike. <S> However, this is not the only use of the future progressive. <S> It is often used when there is no particular focus on the ongoing nature of the future event: <S> You'll be hearing from my lawyer. <S> She'll be starting school soon, won't she? <S> In such cases, the future simple is also possible: You'll hear from my lawyer. <S> She'll start school soon, won't she? <S> although, to my ears at least, these are very slightly less natural. <S> Now we come to the OP's examples, both of which are perfectly normal ways to tell someone of your friend's holiday plans. <S> There is possibly one small semantic difference, however. <S> Namely, that the progressive form could carry with it the implication that the visit is part of an arrangement, whereas the future simple is a simple statement of fact. <S> As such the future progressive parallels the use of the present progressive to express arranged future events: <S> I'm playing tennis with Mike tomorrow. <S> I'm visiting my grandparents at the weekend. <S> She's visiting Chichen Itza next week. <S> But in Fumblefinger's term, this is " armchair rationalisation ", a process that no native speaker consciously goes through in advance of what they say in day-to-day conversation. <S> In summary, the OP's two sentences are virtually equivalent, but there are other contexts where only the future continuous is possible, or where it may sound a little more natural than the future simple. <A> Both the sentences have a similar meaning,but the first sentence emphasize on continuation of action. <S> * <S> Basically, both tenses tell you that the action will happen in the future. <S> If you simply want to state that the action will happen in the future ? <S> you can use the simple future. <S> This tense gives no other data than the time --> Future. <S> The future progressive, however, tells you two things. <S> 1) <S> It tells you the time of the action -- <S> > <S> Future 2) <S> It tells you that the action will be IN PROGRESS. <S> * <S> In conclusion, if you would like to say that the action will happen ? <S> you can use the simple future tense. <S> If you would like to say that the action will happen, and you want to emphasize that it will be in progress at some time ? <S> you can use the future progressive tense. <S> Please refer this link for detailed information.. <A> When she goes to Mexico, she will be visiting Chichen Itza [taking photos, listening to the guides, climbing the pyramids, soaking up the atmosphere, etc.] <S> In this sentence I understand the tourist is going to visit Mexico and will spend some time touring the city of Chichen Itza. <S> It implies the action will last a certain amount of time, perhaps a whole day or even a couple. <S> The length of time is not specified, but the speaker's focus is on the action of visiting. <S> When she goes to Mexico, she will visit Chichen Itza [followed by an excursion to Park Ik Kil,.. etc.] <S> In this sentence the intention to visit to Chichen Itza may or may not take a day. <S> The duration of the visit appears to be shorter than the previous statement. <S> Again we do not know for certain but the impression is the city is included in the itinerary of Mexico <S> but it is not the main focus. <A> To all intents and purposes, it's just a stylistic choice. <S> I should also say that some speakers in some contexts might also just use Simple Present throughout... <S> When she goes to Mexico, she visits Chichen Itza. <S> ... <S> although it's worth noting that both this version and OP's second can also be used of habitual actions (i.e. - she often goes to Mexico, and whenever she does, she usually visits Chichen Itza).
| Both sentences express an action in the future, and both meanings are virtually identical, however, there are some subtle differences.
|
"If you were to do" compared to "If you did" If they were to cancel the deal, I would be devastated. If they canceled the deal, I would be devastated. My thextbook says, the " if ... were to " construction gives much less probability for something to happen. But an American said to me that it is not, he does not perceive it when he hears it. <Q> The current question overlaps considerably with <S> this earlier one asking about using future tense after if . <S> As has often been pointed out on ELL, English only really has two tenses ( past , and "not-past" ). <S> And "hypothetical" scenarios such as might follow if are "orthogonal" to the past-present-future timeline anyway, so we're pretty flexible about the choice of tense. <S> 1 <S> : If you cancel, I will go instead 2: If you cancelled, I would go instead 3: <S> If you were to cancel, I would go instead 4: If you are cancelling, I will go instead 5: <S> If you will cancel, I will go instead 6: If you would cancel, I would go instead etc. <S> , etc. <S> All the above are pretty much equivalent, except that using the modal will/would in #5/#6 is more evocative of volition <S> (i.e. - If you are willing to cancel... ) <S> , so it's more likely to be used when making a request , rather than a simple statement (about a hypothetical action/reaction). <S> But if the speaker wishes to convey that he considers the scenario unlikely, he may well use OP's first format, stressing the word were ... <S> If you were to cancel, I would be very surprised indeed! <A> In practice, most people would probably interpret these two sentences the same way, and I've never heard that "canceled" suggests a greater probability than "were to cancel." <S> However, strictly speaking, the two sentences do not mean the same thing. <S> "If they were to cancel" uses the subjunctive mood , used to characterize hypothetical or counterfactual conditions. <S> It implies that the cancellation decision has not yet been made, although I think it can also cover scenarios in which the decision has been made but you don't know the outcome yet, or in which you don't know whether the decision has been made yet or not. <S> "If they canceled" is not subjunctive, it is past tense indicative: it says that the decision to cancel or not cancel has already taken place, but the use of "if" says that you don't yet know the results of that decision. <S> If that is indeed the case, I would suggest using "I will" (future tense) rather than "I would" (present subjunctive): you will learn the outcome of the decision in the future, and when you do, you will be devastated if the decision is to cancel. <S> So here are three possible sentences you could use, depending on the timing of the decision: <S> "If they canceled the deal, I will be devastated." <S> (the decision has already taken place, but you don't know the outcome yet) <S> "If they cancel the deal, I will be devastated." <S> (the decision will take place in the future) <S> "If they were to cancel the deal, I would be devastated." <S> (works with past or future, or if you don't know whether the decision has happened or not) <A> In the first sentence the decision is in the air; in the second sentence the decision has definitely been made, but the person in question has yet to find out which way things went. <S> The second sentence should probably read as follows: <S> If they canceled the deal, I would am going to be devastated.
| Regarding OP's idea of the probability of the scenario being (or becoming) true, there's no difference implied by the actual choice of words.
|
Plural for "balance of nature" Is it correct to use "balances of nature" plural form, for natural equilibriums or are there some other ways to say the same thing in plural form? <Q> A Google books search reveals thousands of instances, many of them in scholarly works. <S> Here is one : <S> Knowledge is so imperfect about the balances of nature , and these balances so fundamental to the existence and the perpetuation of life, that they should not be tampered with, even if the risk involved is small. <S> ( The Wisconsin Seminar on Natural Resource Policies in Relation to Economic Development and International Cooperation , Vol. <S> 1 ) <A> One could certainly argue otherwise, but I will say that there is only one nature, and therefore only one equilibrium thereof. <S> So I only use the singular, and I would say that you may quite safely do the same. <A> It is more common to speak of "the balance of nature" then "the balances of nature". <S> The singular describes the idea that nature is in a stable state meaning that changes to part of nature will affect other parts. <S> The plural emphasizes the plurality, i.e. there are multiple things being balanced. <S> After seeing your context, I would personally use an alternative that will let you keep the "<adjective> <noun>" pattern. <S> Enchanted Forests... <S> Fragile Ecosystems... <S> (common phrase) Delicate Balances... (common phrase, audience will infer "natural" from the image displayed) Unyielding Fundamentalists... etc.
| Balances of nature is indeed the proper way to pluralize the term.
|
"Have a seat" vs. "please sit down" There are several places where we might ask someone to sit down, such as when we extend that invitation to a friend in our home, or to a business associate in a conference room. Of these two (which are heard rather often): Have a seat. Please sit down. is one of them more appropriate than the other to ask people whom you do not know too well to sit and have a talk? Would one of them be more appropriate than the other in a more formal setting? <Q> In this context, I would say “please have a seat”. <S> You're inviting the person to sit down, but not formally request that they sit down, merely offering the possibility. <S> “Please take a seat” is also possible, but slightly less deferential. <S> It tends to be used in contexts where the person really should sit, for example by a doctor talking to a patient. <S> “Please sit down” and “please be seated” are more directive. <S> For example, an air hostess might tell a passenger on a plane to “please be seated”, because the passenger really must seat while the aircraft is in motion. <S> However, tone is key: it is possible to say “Please, sit down” (or perhaps that should be “Please! <S> Sit down!”), with a pause after “please” and the right intonation, to convey that you are happy to see the person and cordially inviting them to sit down. <A> A teacher might tell her students, "please sit down". <S> A host would be more likely to say to a guest, "have a seat". <S> As others have noted, tone and context is also important. <A> In a context where you are not ordering the other person around, requests like “Won't you have a seat?”, “Would you like a chair?” <S> , “Will you sit down?”, and similar are more likely to be used than commands like “Have a seat” or “Please sit down”. <S> (Note, “Please be seated” is a slightly less peremptory form of the latter.) <S> What you should say is quite context dependent; without a description of the particular context of interest, a specific answer isn't possible. <S> Also, as StoneyB commented, your tone and how you behave as you talk to the other party are quite important. <S> Most phrases can be delivered as politely or as rudely as the speaker chooses.
| In general, "have a seat" is more polite; "please sit down" is more of an order.
|
What does "sure" mean? How is sure different from yes ? How is it different from other responses? When should I use it? <Q> It's often used in response to requests for permission: <S> Alice: Would you mind if I take the car? <S> Bob: <S> Sure, go ahead. <S> In the above, Bob is willing to go along with the proposition of letting Alice use his car. <S> Bob is not signalling literal agreement with Alice's words, which is exactly what <S> yes does: <S> Alice <S> : Would you mind if I take the car? <S> Bob: <S> Yes , I would mind very much. <S> Take the bus. <S> Compare the following: <S> Alice <S> : Would you mind if I take the car? <S> Bob: No , go right ahead. <S> In this case, literal disagreement has the same illocutionary force as sure , so we can see that yes <S> and sure <S> don't mean the same thing. <S> However, the opposite might be true in another situation: <S> Alice <S> : Would you like some cake? <S> Bob: <S> Yes , I'd love some. <S> Alice <S> : Would you like some cake? <S> Bob: <S> Sure , thank you. <S> Here, Bob's willingness to go along with Alice's proposition has the same force as literal agreement . <S> No would signal the opposite: <S> Alice <S> : Would you like some cake? <S> Bob: <S> No , thank you. <S> In other words, sure signals consent, while yes and no signal literal agreement or disagreement. <A> Sure is an informal expression meaning "Certainly," which is more formal. <S> May I have one of those? <S> Certainly. <S> is more formal than <S> May I have one of those? <S> Sure. <S> Using "sure" in this way is typically American, as Americans are more wont to substitute adjectives for adverbs in informal speech. <S> For example, an American might say <S> "we were beaten good and proper" whereas an Englishman would be more likely to say "we were well and truly beaten." <A> Sure is an answer that specifically means <S> I agree with you, or <S> I will do as you wish . <S> For example, if somebody asks <S> Would you mind helping me clean the house? <S> , you have the option to say Yes (which means "I do mind," and is the equivalent of refusing to help, even though it sounds like you're agreeing) or No (which means "I don't mind" and is the equivalent of agreeing to help, even though it sounds like a refusal). <S> See how in this case, both options are confusing? <S> But if you say sure , there's none of that ambiguity. <S> It's understood that you are agreeing to help. <S> No matter how the question was phrased, if you say Sure , it means "I agree with you and will do as you wish." <S> Of course, you can say sure sarcastically, as with anything, in which case it usually implies the express opposite: "I do not agree!" <S> or sometimes "I don't believe you." <S> The last and most sophisticated (native-level) usage of sure is for when someone is talking about a hypothetical situation. <S> It's used to acknowledge hypothetical "givens. <S> " We're using our imagination here. <S> Here's an example: <S> Jim: So let's say I gave you a thousand dollars. <S> Bob: Sure. <S> Jim: And then you wouldn't give it back. <S> Bob: Sure, okay. <S> Jim: Does that give me the right to kill you??
| Sure is used to signal consent , or to put it another way, willingness to go along with something .
|
What is the difference between "as much as" and "much as"? What is the difference between the following sentences? As much as I admire him for his sterling qualities, I cannot excuse him for being unfair to his friends. Much as I admire him for his sterling qualities, I cannot excuse him for being unfair to his friends. <Q> These two constructions are not equivalent, but the line between them has been blurred over the past two or three generations. <S> As much as , strictly, should be used only in comparisons: <S> Jane admires John as much as I admire Joan. <S> ⇨ <S> As much as I admire Joan, (so much) <S> Jane admires John. <S> Much as has two distinct uses. <S> In one, it alternates with much like , depending on what follows,and much acts as a modifier to the following conjunctive: <S> Much like me, Jane admires John. <S> = <S> Jane is (much) like me in admiring John. <S> Much as I admire Joan, Jane admires John. <S> = <S> Jane admires John in (much) the same way as I admire Joan. <S> The other use is the one which you employ. <S> Here as has the same sense as though (and alternates with it) and much , which modifies the verb, is moved to the front of the clause for emphasis. <S> Though I admire him much, I cannot excuse him. <S> ⇨ <S> Much though I admire him, I cannot excuse him. <S> ⇨ <S> Much as <S> I admire him, I cannot excuse him. <S> Other terms than much can be treated the same way: Little as I admire him, I cannot condemn him. <S> Deeply as I admire him, I cannot excuse him. <S> Honourable <S> though I hold him to be, I cannot excuse him. <S> These three uses are rarely confused when the clause falls in its "natural" place after the main clause. <S> Moving the clause to the beginning of the sentence, to secure emphasis, is a rhetorical and primarily literary device; and the much as use has never, I think, fallen entirely comfortably on the ear. <S> Consequently, there is a strong tendency to translate much as to the more familiar as much as . <S> And it may be the case that this use, though literally meaningless, is now so widespread that it has become the ordinary idiom— <S> witness David Schwartz' answer. <S> My advice would be to avoid the use. <S> It's literary, and sounds (and reads) affected, in either form; and each form is bound to annoy somebody, <S> either those who adhere to my opinion or those who adhere to David Schwartz'. <S> Instead, use an ordinary untransposed construction with "although" or "even though": <S> Even though I admire him greatly, I cannot excuse ... <A> "Much as I admire him" means " <S> Although I much admire him" (or more typically, "although I admire him a lot"). <S> For example: I admire him for his good looks as much as his integrity. <S> Means that you hold his good looks and his integrity in equal esteem. <S> Other examples: <S> I eat steak as often as chicken. <S> Joe runs as fast as Jim. <S> On the other hand, "as well as" can have the same meaning. <S> He plays piano as well as I do. <S> But it can also mean "and" or "in addition to." <S> The omelette had chicken as well as onions. <A> They describe almost the opposite relationship between the two things. <S> As much as I admire him for his sterling qualities, I cannot excuse him for being unfair to his friends. <S> Here, "as much as" means "even though". <S> Essentially, it means that my admiring someone would make you think I could excuse them, but I cannot. <S> That is, it shows a conflict between two truths. <S> Since these things do conflict, we might excuse unfairness from those we admire, this makes sense. <S> Much as I admire him for his sterling qualities, I cannot excuse him for being unfair to his friends. <S> Here, "much as" means "in about the same way". <S> Essentially, this means that I admire him and in the same way, cannot excuse his unfairness. <S> Since these two things don't really seem equivalent, it's hard to see how this would make sense.
| "As much as" is usually used in a construction where you are comparing two ideas and expressing them to be equivalent.
|
How to express working shifts in perfect English Suppose we want to work in day shift for two days. How will you express it in correct English? Can I say: We will be working in day shift for two days (Monday and Tuesday). Would that be perfect English? <Q> I'd say, "We will be working the day shift Monday and Tuesday." <S> You don't "work in a shift", you just "work a shift". <S> I see Peter Shor and JR both say "work on the day shift". <S> Hmm. <S> I don't recall hearing people use "on" in there, just "work the day shift". <S> I just did a Google ngram and it found "work <S> the day shift" used four times as often as "work on the day shift". <S> (It also found zero uses of "work in the day shift".) <S> However, it shows "work on the day shift" as more popular up to about 1970. <S> This appears to be a changing usage. <A> You could replace 'next' by 'the coming' (not just 'coming'). <S> But if we're talking about a few days from now rather than a few days on from January 1st , say, I'd stick with 'next'. <A> In your question, "perfect" doesn't seem like the right word to use. <S> There's usually more than one valid way to say something in English, and one isn't any more "perfect" than the other. <S> For example, you could start your sentence with any of these (they are all perfectly valid): <S> "We will be working..." <S> "We will work..." <S> "We are scheduled to work... <S> " You could continue with either of these: "during the day shift," "on the day shift" and then conclude with: "for two days (Monday and Tuesday)." " <S> over the next two days (Monday and Tuesday). <S> " "next Monday and Tuesday. <S> " <S> Those components could form up to 18 different sentences, and I think all of them would sound just fine. <S> Moreover, with more context, you needn't be so wordy. <S> and there would be nothing wrong with that, either.
| Assuming an employer has three standard shifts (Day, Swing, and Night), and the conversation has already established the context, one could simply say: We're working days next Monday and Tuesday.
|
Do "succession" and "successor" have the same meaning? As a noun, both succession and successor mean "people who inherit something." Do they have the same meaning? Is one used for people? <Q> So succession is the strain of people that will inherit. <S> The successor is one of them. <S> I think most often successor is used for the one that actually inherits (the first in succession), but it might also be used for anyone in the succession. <S> This is what Webster says. <S> Succession (1): <S> a : the order in which or the conditions under which one person after another succeeds to a property, dignity, title, or throne b : <S> the right of a person or line to succeed c : <S> the line having such a right Successor: one that follows; especially : one who succeeds to a throne, title, estate, or office <A> The successor is the person. <S> The succession is the act (of a person "succeeding"). <S> So they are related, but not the same. <A> Context and examples are always useful. <S> Also my opinion (not tested) is that successor and succession are as often used in a business or organizational context these days, maybe more so than for talking about the UK monarchy. <S> Successor (person that replaces predecessor in a company), see Bloomberg Bank of England Governor Mervyn King said his successor and the U.K. banking industry have unfinished business to do in reforming the financial system and reviving the U.K. economy. <S> Succession planning (planning for a business to continue, should it lose key people), see <S> news.BBC.co.uk <S> The London Stock Exchange has said it has begun " succession planning " over who will replace its chief executive Dame Clara Furse. <S> But yes, you can also talk about the line of succession to the throne , see Wikipedia <S> The line of succession to the British throne is the ordered sequence of all those people eligible to succeed to the throne of the United Kingdom <A> I think it is worth extending a little bit on skymninge's answer. <S> In the case of succession , we can indeed conclude that succession can have the same meaning as successors . <S> The only difference is that succession refers to the abstract concept which can take on the meaning of the people that represent that concept, whereas successors directly refers to the people who execute the action described by the concept. <S> This sounds complicated, but it is actually quite a common phenomenon in English. <S> In case of simple actions that are not too abstract, we will make a very clear distinction between the verb (e.g. drive), the action as a noun (driving) and the person doing it (driver). <S> For more complex or abstract actions, the distinction between the action and the actor may fade away. <S> When we look at the verb administer , we chiefly use that to mean to apply something. <S> However, in the noun administration we find the meaning of “keeping track of what needs to be done”. <S> The word is used both for the process of administration of a company or club (and includes taking care of (written) communication and taking care of the archives) and for the administration of a country (as in the U.S. administration). <S> In both those cases, administration does not only refer to the abstract concept, but also to the people that do it . <S> We do usually not even consider using the word administrator for any individual member of the U.S. administration, although technically I guess we could. <S> (We can call them members of the administration, though). <S> Similarly, government can refer to the concept of governing a country, as well as to the group of people that actually do the job. <S> The same goes for management . <S> We can call the collection of managers (people responsible for a company's management) the management of a company. <S> In sports, when a coach selects the members of his team, that process is called selection . <S> And yet again, we can call the players that are selected the selection . <S> Another common example is delegation . <S> That is the process of appointing someone to do a job, but it can also refer to a group of people that have been given a job to do.
| Basically, a successor is the person next in succession.
|
"Alive in the next minute" Consider the following sentences: We ourselves don't know whether we'll be alive in the next minute. We ourselves don't know whether we'll be alive in next minute. We ourselves don't know whether we'll be alive next minute. Out of these three, which one will used by a native speaker? I'm not sure which is grammatically correct. I think the first one is correct, but I'm not sure about that. It's for spoken English, not written English. The context is simple: A few friends are stuck in a bad situation (or place) and anyone can die at any time. So one guy says the above statement. <Q> I would make these changes: add the verb <S> (I think you meant to do that anyway), drop the ourselves , change the whether to <S> if , add the word still , and include a preposition in the final phrase: <S> We don't know if we'll still be alive in the next minute . <S> The inclusion of ourselves isn't grammatically incorrect, but it makes the sentence unnecessarily wordy. <S> Similarly, there's nothing wrong with whether in that sentence, but I think if sounds a little more natural. <S> In my mind, the word still adds a small bit of tension to the scene. <S> Obviously, the characters are alive now, the issue is whether or not they will still be alive a minute from now. <S> A rewording you might consider would be: <S> We don't know if we'll still be alive a minute from now . <S> The phrase a minute from now is often used to allude to the immediate future. <S> Here's a quote: <S> I remind us: the future begins a minute from now . <S> (Helen Harris Perlman, 1989) <A> You need a verb. <S> Of the three, best is probably: <S> We ourselves don't know whether we'll be alive next minute. <A> Grammatically, there's no reason why OP's usage should be any different with other time-frames for which it's easier to find examples. <S> Replacing year with minute , results from Google Books show that native speakers almost always choose OP's version #3... 1a: ...be alive in the next year (90 results) 2a: ...be alive in next year (0 results) 3a: ...be alive next year <S> (3700 results) <S> Note that in OP's context, next minute/year/etc. <S> identifies a specific period of time in the future (the minute/year after the current minute/year ). <S> This isn't quite the same as the similar construction in/within the next minute/year, which identifies a period of time one minute/year long, starting from now . <S> Thus,... 1b: He will die in the next year (4700 results) 2b: He will die in next year (2 results) 3b: He will die next year <S> (5830 results <S> The reason format #1 occurs much more often there is because dying can be seen as an "event" which may occur at some particular point within a specified time-frame , whereas in OP's context, being alive is more an "ongoing state" that may (or may not) <S> continue throughout that time-frame. <S> To summarise, OP's #2 is non-idiomatic in all contexts. <S> Whether in the is used or not largely depends on whether the speaker is talking about an event that may occur before some specified time-period has elapsed, or <S> about some condition that may or may not be true during some future time-frame.
| As for the preposition (which is the crux of your question), next minute by itself sounds like it's missing a word, at least to my native ear, so I prefer in the next minute .
|
How would "Do you know what happened?" be understood? In Italian, I could say Lo sai cosa è successo? ("Do you know what happened?") for introducing a new topic. I would not generally expect an answer, as it is just a way to let the other person know I am changing topic; in the case I see the other person is not paying attention, maybe because he is thinking to something else, or something else is distracting him, I would not continue until he doesn't reply back with Cosa? ("What?") or a similar phrase. If the person to whom I am speaking would be paying attention, and he notices I am not saying anything, he would ask Cosa? Would "Do you know what happened?" be understood in the same way from English native speakers? What would happen if I say "Do you know what happened?" and I don't say anything else? I am speaking about a face-to-face communication. <Q> The ordinary phrase in US English is "You know what?" <S> It is spoken with a falling intonation on <S> know and a strong rising intonation on <S> what : <S> Ya kno <S> ↘w <S> wh↗at? <S> This is employed to announce that you are about to reveal some exciting piece of information, presumably new to your hearers: <S> You know what? <S> —I won! <S> It has the prosodic contour of a question, but it doesn't "expect" an answer: <S> it's a rhetorical question. <S> But the speaker may pause to build suspense until they get an answer, which is normally "What?". <S> The "what" piece may be expanded to a full free relative clause, as in your Italian example, and in that case "what" may be replaced by another more appropriate interrogative: You know what happened? <S> —Bob won the 440! <S> You know who I just saw? <S> —Bob! <S> In these the pitch-stress moves onto the piece after what or who : You kno <S> ↘w <S> → <S> what h↗app → ened? <S> You kno <S> ↘w <S> → who ↗I <S> → <S> just → saw? <S> There's also a version with the opposite intonation: <S> Ya kno <S> ↗ <S> w <S> → wh↘at? <S> Ya kno <S> ↗ <S> w <S> → what → happ↘ened? <S> This is typically employed to announce new information which is not exciting but unexpected and perhaps unwelcome: <S> You know what —we've been working on the wrong end. <S> We've completed our study and <S> you know what — <S> Bob was right all along. <A> I think it would always been understood as a literal question about something in the shared frame of reference . <S> That means the question would be understood as being about one of the following topics: the current topic of discussion a topic obvious from the current situation, which both the speaker and listener both know about <S> I don't think this question has idiomatic meaning in English, and I think an answer would generally be expected whenever it's asked. <S> This question doesn't introduce a new topic. <S> It would most likely be asked when it seems that something bad has happened (or may have happened). <A> I agree with snailboat's answer that "Do you know what happened? <S> " is going to be taken as a literal question in English. <S> For example, if Jim arrives at the scene of a car accident and Mary is already there, he might ask "Do you know what happened?" or perhaps more likely "Did you see what happened?" <S> But I've also been trying to think of a phrase in English that you might use to get the same meaning across. <S> The phrase is used literally on news programs to change news topics ("And that's all we have today for sports. <S> In other news, the President...") and the idiom might have originated there. <S> You don't always have to know what you're changing the topic to, just that you want the topic to change. <S> There might have been an awkward silence, or you might be uncomfortable with the current topic of conversation, or you might actually have something else to talk about. <S> Jim: ...and that's when the lion jumped out and ate the baby gazelle! <S> It ripped the head off and— <S> Mary: <S> ( uncomfortable and wanting to change the subject ) <S> In other news... <S> Or perhaps <S> : Jim: ...and that's the short version of how you make motor fuel. <S> Now if you go a little more in-depth on the subject— <S> Mary: ( very, very bored ) <S> In other news, have you seen this YouTube video of a cat?
| The only idiomatic expression that came to mind for changing the subject (in American English at least) is "In other news..."
|
What do these 'ball's mean? The guy [truck driver] just yelled above the roar, and all I [had hitchhiked the car]had to do was yell back, and we relaxed. And he balled that thing clear to Iowa City and yelled me the funniest stories about how he got around the law in every town that had an unfair speed limit, saying over and over again, “Them goddam cops can’t put no flies on my ass!” Just as we rolled into Iowa City he saw another truck coming behind us, and because he had to turn off at Iowa City he blinked his tail lights at the other guy and slowed down for me to jump out, which I did with my bag, and the other truck, acknowledging this exchange, stopped for me, and once again, in the twink of nothing, I was in another big high cab, all set to go hundreds of miles across the night, and was I happy! And the new truck driver was as crazy as the other and yelled just as much, and all I had to do was lean back and roll on. Now I could see Denver looming ahead of me like the Promised Land, way out here beneath the stars, across the prairie of Iowa and the plains of Nebraska, and I could see the greater vision of San Francisco beyond, like jewels in the night. He balled the jack and told stories for a couple of hours, then, at a town in Iowa where years later Dean and I were stopped on suspicion in what looked like a stolen Cadillac, he slept a few hours in the seat (Jack Kerouac, On the Road) What are those bold-faced parts mean? <Q> At first I wondered if this might be some kind of trucker lingo, but the phrase seems to be a bit dated. <S> The Urban Dictionary indicates that the phrase means to move real fast (particularly in a vehicle), and that fits the context. <S> The best description of the phrase I found, though, was in a Word of the Day column: <S> " <S> This well-known song introduced a dance step of the same name that was the subject of the song, so one sense of ball the jack was 'to perform (the dance step introduced in the song)'. <S> The usual sense of the expression, though, is 'to go fast; make haste', and this is often used in reference to railroad trains. <S> This train-related use seems not to be the origin, however; jack 'a railroad locomotive' isn't found outside this phrase until later. <S> (The phrase is verbal, which is why I said that it doesn't mean 'with great haste', but rather 'to do something with great haste'.) <S> A slightly different sense is 'to work hard and efficiently'. <S> The ragtime song was published in 1913, and the phrase is not attested earlier. <S> It is unknown whether the song actually coined the phrase or merely popularized an already existing one. <S> Both the 'go fast' and the 'work hard' senses were common by the end of the 1910s. <S> I can see why Kerouac might have used the term when he was writing, but I'd avoid using it today. <S> For one, it's not well-known; I think most would give you a blank stare. <S> For another, balling has other meanings nowadays , and I don't think you'd want to be misunderstood. <A> Old trucks had a manual gearshift which consisted of a ball-and-jack shifting device (gear shift lever that had a ball-like device at the lower bottom of the gear shift lever). <S> The gear shift lever would change gears in the transmission. <S> Thus the term in the thirties, forties and early fifties "ballin' the jack". <A> I believe this term originated with railroad slang from the late 1800's when signal flags ("jacks") were used to indicate whether trains had clear tracks ahead or not. <S> Highballing, or balling the jack, indicated that the signal flags were raised high and the track was clear.
| The phrase ball the jack was popularized in 1913 by a ragtime song by Jim Burris and Chris Smith called "Ballin' the Jack. Whenever a trucker would really make haste shifting the gears, upshifting and downshifting to make the truck run fast, it would be said "that trucker is really ballin' the jack".
|
First, Second, Third, Fourth or 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th? One, Two, Three or 1, 2, 3? When we use words like first, second, third, fourth or 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, in sentences, what will be the best way to write these? Also, what about numbers? Do we put them as numbers or numerals ? Here are some sample sentences, He got first/1st class in that examination. He gave me two/2 books. He will be the first/1st to get there. My son is finishing his seventh/7th semester. The turkey weighed five/5 Kg. Yes, I understand that we can have many examples like the above. Do you think that you can give some general rules for these? <Q> I think it's better to spell out numbers while writing essays or letters or related pieces. <S> (In Mathematics or any Science subject or Commerce subject can one freely use the numbers.) <S> Also, for giving measurements, The turkey weighed five kilograms seems better than <S> The turkey weighed five Kg . <S> When you are already writing out the number in words, why write the unit in the short form? <S> Spoils the look. <A> AFAIK, there aren't any set of hard rules about this convention of writing. <S> In practise, I prefer to use the words one , two etc. <S> if I am writing a large paragraph and the numbers are not appearing often enough (opinion-based testing). <S> Another thing I sometimes follow is, if using words such as first or three ; somehow, make the text sound better/rhythmic (it might be hard to explain to English speakers; other languages have different pronunciation for numbers, and I for one, use those when reading) I prefer to compose my text accordingly. <A> The rule used to be that if the number was less than 10 you would spell it out in a sentence/paragraph. <S> So for the examples above, the first four sentences would all get the spelling version of the number. <S> The last sentence, however, you could be flexible with if it is written in a recipe and everything else has the number. <S> That was how I was taught, but these days ... <S> heck, we can misspell things all day long in an email or text, and it is acceptable.
| In your given examples, I'd use the numerical representation everywhere as the text itself is quite short.
|
"Gets dizzy" and comma splice when multiple events happen Kevin gets dizzy, his sight blurs, and he falls. Is the comma splice okay? Is the phrase "gets dizzy" grammatically correct? Is anything else wrong with above sentence? <Q> It's not a comma splice. <S> It's a list of three things: A, B, and C. Notice <S> the and before the last item. <S> A comma splice looks more like the following: <S> A, B. <S> Anyway, your sentence is grammatical. <S> Nothing is particularly wrong with it. <A> The sentence is listing three different actions, in the same way the following sentences do. <S> I had dinner, brushed my teeth, and went to sleep. <S> I went to the store, Michelle returned home, and Maria waited for her husband to return home. <S> The comma before and is the Oxford comma used in a list of three or more items before and or or . <S> get hungry , get sick , or get frustrated . <A> Get is one of those words that is hard for ESL speakers, because it has many definitions (get dizzy, get home, get money, get a point), is often used idiomatically (get on one's nerves, get wind of) and is often combined with a preposition to form a phrasal verb (get at, get by, get along). <S> For a list, see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/get .
| Grammatically, there isn't anything wrong with get dizzy , in the same way there isn't anything wrong with
|
What's the opposite of "vegetarian"? If someone hates salad, and mostly eats meat, they basically are the opposite of vegetarians. What do you call those people in English? I guess there is no such a thing as meatarian . <Q> Carnivore is the noun used for any animal that eats meat, while omnivore is used for an animal or a person that eats plants and meat. <S> Although carnivore is generally used to mean an obligate carnivore (animals whose metabolism is not able to synthesize nutrients from vegetal matter), you could jokingly say you are a carnivore to mean you don't eat vegetables. <S> To be more clear, vegetarian means "a person that doesn't eat meat or fish" because that is a decision that person made, while carnivore doesn't imply any choice. <S> Animals don't decide to be carnivore or herbivore, in the same way human beings are omnivore without having done any choice. <A> Carnivore , herbivore and omnivore are technical terms drawn from biology, not used in ordinary discourse except for humorous effect. <S> Here are some sample titles from Google: Vegan vs. Meat <S> Eater - Steven Rinella - YouTube <S> Healthy Vegetarian Recipes That Satisfy Even Die-Hard Meat Eaters ... <S> Veganism for the Meat Eater <S> Going From Vegetarian to Meat-Eating Note, however, that being a meat-eater does not imply that one "hates salad" or is in any way opposed to the consumption of vegetables. <S> It signifies one who eats meat, not one who eats meat exclusively . <S> I don't think there is a term for that, probably because there must be very few people who consume only animal products. <A> Non-vegetarian - a person who eats meat, fish, eggs, etc
| The most usual colloquial term appears to be meat-eater ; it is employed by vegetarians and meat-eaters alike with neither less or more opprobrium than is inherent in the speaker's personal stance.
|
What is the word that is used nowadays to mean "asylum"? I was trying to translate manicomio in English, and I remembered that a friend of mine told me the English word was asylum . Looking at the OALD, I noticed it is said to be an old use of the word. (old use) a hospital where people who were mentally ill could be cared for, often for a long time Google Translate gives me the following words: Asylum Mental Hospital (This seems closer to ospedale psichiatrico .) Madhouse Bedlam I assume that Google Translate orders the words in a specific order, but the fact the first one is asylum confuses me. What is the current word I should used to mean the place where people with mental ill are cared for? Notice that in Italian manicomio is also used for a situation where there is a lot of noise, activity, and confusion (i.e. pandemonium , which has also an equivalent in the Italian pandemonio ); I guess that is the reason why Google translate suggests bedlam . <Q> It's not so much that the word asylum is no longer used as that most places don't have them anymore. <S> As was discussed in comments, the insane used to be placed in asylums which were more like prisons; they were thought dangerous and incurable, and essentially left to rot. <S> Rather than just asylum by itself, I've more often heard this as insane asylum (though I suppose technically this is redundant, it's how I've heard it used, and helps differentiate it from political asylum ). <S> The modern institutions that care for mental patients properly would indeed be called a mental hospital, though that is perhaps more informal than the more politically correct psychiatric hospital . <S> So while asylums themselves don't tend to exist anymore, I certainly wouldn't agree that the word is 'old'; in fact it was recently used to title a Doctor <S> Who episode , which I find rather current. :) <A> Psychiatric hospital or psychiatric ward also are reasonable. <S> In some instances, rehab and retreat may apply. <S> Loony bin might also apply but has an entirely different tone. <A> Short answer: "mental hospitals" or "mental institutions" The word "asylum" in general means a place of refuge or protection. <S> So we can talk about people fleeing from political persecution "seeking asylum". <S> People occasionally talk about some very peaceful and tranquil place being "an asylum from their hectic lives", etc. <S> So originally the idea of an "insane asylum" was that it was a place where the insane could be protected and taken care of. <S> Or course once you make such a place a large institution, it becomes bureaucratic and impersonal, and so insane asylums acquired the reputation of being unpleasant places where mentally ill people were treated like animals or objects, warehoused, treated rudely, perhaps even abused. <S> (I don't claim any personal knowledge, but I'd guess that, like most things in real life, there were likely places that were very good and caring and places that were abusive and evil, and the bad ones gave a bad reputation to all of them. <S> But whatever.) <S> In any case, insane asylums acquired a bad reputation and were largely shut down in the western world. <S> The ones that still exist are typically called "mental hospitals". <S> This is probably technically inaccurate as they are not really hospitals, that is, their primary purpose is not treatment but to serve as a residential facility. <S> It's more of a euphemism. <S> Sometimes they are more accurately called "mental institutions". <A> The two most commonly used nowadays are "mental hospital" and "asylum". <S> Both would be understood in American English, but, in my experience at least, "mental hospital" has become more common.
| Mental hospital (which, as you say, corresponds to ospedale psichiatrico ) is a reasonable choice for the lunatic asylum sense of manicomio .
|
Are temples or shrines "buildings" or "structures"? When I refer to old temples or shrines in Japan, shoule I use structures or buildings? I refer to each of them as a shrine or a temple, but when I want to generalize, like all these temples, shrines, walls or whatever in certain place, which were built hundreds years ago, how should I call them? To me, "buildings" sound like things built in this modern era. So I thought structures would be better, but sometimes I've heard people use "buildings" for that. I researched these words myself, but I'm not sure. Could you please explain the difference between two and which is the better word choice here? <Q> Interesting question. <S> However, you've correctly identified a problem with that word: it's too generic. <S> The word building can be applied to office buildings, strip malls, houses, schools, temples, hotels, factories, stables, arenas, and restaurants. <S> So, it's not very descriptive at all, and I don't think the word structure helps in that regard. <S> With that in mind, then, I would call the temples and shrines you mention places of worship . <S> At least that word – which has its own entry in many dictionaries – narrows down the particular kind of building. <S> If you want to emphasize that these places of worship have been standing for hundreds of years, I would use the adjective ancient . <S> So, here's how I would say it: <S> Last week, we visited many ancient places of worship . <S> Incidentally, I checked a few places in the thesaurus, and I could find no English word that, by itself, meant "old building. <S> " <S> There's the word ruins , but that describes the physical state of a structure more than its age. <S> Some words carry overtones of a probable long existance – such as castle – but castles still can be built today. <A> A building generally is designed with walls and a roof. <S> There certainly can be ancient buildings. <S> Structures can be anything that is composed of structural components- <S> a cell structure, a shade structure, etc. <S> My advice is use building only when the referent was at least designed with walls and a roof- even if they have long since fallen in or washed away, and then only if your intent in the usage is to treat it as a whole entity whose basic nature is to have walls and a roof. <S> This building was erected in 100 BC. <S> - We're talking about the whole thing as a building. <S> This structure has stood for thousands of years - Might be a building or just a bunch of pillars, but we are talking about it's fortitude as a structure. <S> This building was designed to hold the King's library. <S> The structure's entrance is made of beams 6 feet wide. <S> - We can switch back and forth on what we call it based on what we're saying about it <A> Generally speaking, a temple would be a fully-grown, human-accessible building, whereas a shrine may be as simple as a single statue, so could while it probably is a 'construction' it could NOT be called a building. <S> There are various terms you could use, depending on circumstances, such as "Religious site", "Holy site" etc <S> but nothing comes to mind that is a single word.
| Use structure when you wish to refer to something that does not walls and a roof or when referring to a building's structural components or design rather than its essence as a closed containing structure. I would say that building is a common generic hypernym for such structures, and you could describe the places you mention as buildings . I can't think of any way to emphasize that the structures have been standing for hundreds of years without using an adjective.
|
Can I always use the present tense for something happening in the future? In Italian, I could use the Simple Present for something happening in the future. For example, I could say l'anno prossimo parto per gli Stati Uniti ("the next year I leave for the USA".) This would mean that my plans to travel are set, or at least are mostly in place. Something might come up that would prevent me from visiting the USA (e.g. the person who was to give me hospitality has more urgent affairs), but that is something I don't know when writing the sentence. In any event, the sentence is not just expressing mere willingness to travel but also intent. Can I use the Simple Present, in English, for a similar situation? If the answer is yes , can it be done with any verb? For example, can I use the following sentence, or is it wrong? With the help of my cousin, I pass the exam. I would take the sentence as meaning that I made arrangements with my cousin, and he is going to help me study for the exam. <Q> The Italian usage you describe ( l'anno prossimo &c) is acceptably translatable with the simple present. <S> What is being spoken of here is a future event which is regarded at the present as immutably fixed; the use is fairly common with schedules and timetables: <S> Is there a time I could see Prof. Sartorius today? <S> Let me see ... <S> he's in class from 9 to 11, he's lunching with the Dean at noon, and there's a Faculty Senate meeting from 1 to 5; how about 11:30? <S> It is also used with commands and instructions of the sort that comprise a running narrative when (or as if) <S> the hearer is present and watching a demonstration: It's very simple. <S> You attach the framistan to the sporgle ... decostinate the pantogriff, like this ... subindure the phlogiston stream ... and voilá ! <S> your problem is solved. <S> But the simple present is too strong to be used in your other example. <S> Even though you believe that securing your cousin's assistance makes passing the exam quite as determinate as Prof. Sartorius' calendar of appointments, the statement and reflects not an impersonal fact but your own confidence and determination. <S> You ordinarily say that you will or are going to pass the exam . <S> *Here's my plan for the coming week. <S> On Monday I study with my cousin. <S> On Tuesday I study with my cousin. <S> On Wednesday I attend the Opera. <S> On Thursday I study with my cousin. <S> On Friday, with my cousin's help, I pass the exam. <S> " In effect, you transform the event into an episode in a present-tense narrative. <A> Short answer: <S> No. <S> In general in English, you must use future tense to describe future events and past tense to describe past events. <S> There is no "historical present" like in Latin, nor an "historical future" <S> like I guess you are saying exists in Italian. <S> The proper phrasing would be, "With the help of my cousin, I will pass the exam." <S> Or perhaps, "With the help of my cousin, I expect to pass the exam" or "... <S> I will certainly pass the exam" or whatever. <A> No, you need I will or <S> I am going to. <S> If you said I leave tomorrow, as an answer to when are you leaving, you have the idea of the future because of tomorrow, but present is not used for future as in Italian or Spanish.
| You use the simple present only when you can portray the event as "subsequent" rather than consequent and contingent:
|
Is "libre" understood by native English speakers? E.g. software libre Libre Office libre software I want to be/stay/feel libre. Do native English people understand this word or not? <Q> While some native speakers would be able to guess the meaning of libre from its context, particularly those who know Latin or Italian, others will not. <A> No, "libre" is not a commonly used English word. <S> As others have said, some people might recognize an English cognate like "liberty," but many people will not. <S> The word is used largely in the Free Software community to distinguish easily between zero-cost ("gratis") and free-as-in-freedom ("libre"), but outside of that particular community, the word is unlikely to be widely understood. <S> Since the Free Software community communicates mostly online and is very vocal, you may see a high use of the word "libre" online, but you should not assume that this means that many English speakers are familiar with the term. <S> As user TecBrat points out, the verbose Free Software slogan "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer" would have died out if the much shorter "libre" could have replaced it. <A> Personally, I have NEVER heard someone use "libre" as an English word. <S> I had a little Latin in school <S> so I know the meaning of the Latin word, and I suppose many English-speakers might guess the meaning as our word "liberty" derives from it. <S> But you could say that about many foreign words -- someone who speaks language A might know or guess the meaning of a word from language B because he's heard foreign words here and there or because there's a related word in his own language. <S> The Wikipedia article that Derfider references gives the impression that this is a word in common use in English. <S> It's not. <S> Perhaps it's well-understood in certain limited communities as a technical term, but it is not familiar to most English-speakers. <S> I checked several English dictionaries and none listed it.
| If you said I want to be libre in a conversation with native speakers, probably most of them would not know what you mean.
|
What's the difference between "to get used to something" and "to be used to something"? to get used to something to be used to something These two expressions seem to be the same. Please tell me what the difference is and in what situations i can use each of them. I only know that after these expressions we can use either a noun (as a subject) or gerund (as an action). <Q> It may help to focus on the verbs of the two phrases. <S> To be is a state and to get (here synonymous with to become ) is an action. <S> So: I am used to the traffic outside my house at night <S> means that I am in a state of not being disturbed by the traffic. <S> Whereas: <S> I hope I get used to the traffic outside my house at night <S> means I hope I will enter ( action ) <S> the state of not being disturbed. <S> Bottom line: If you are used to something, then you are already familiar with it or have enough experience of it. <S> If you get used to something, then you do not yet have full familiarity or experience with it, but you are in the process of developing this familiarity and experience. <A> Used in "be used to" and "get used to" mean "familiar with someone or something through experience" in both the cases. <S> I'm not used to eating so much at lunchtime. <S> I found the job tiring at first <S> but I soon got used to it. <S> As linking verb, get means "to reach a particular state or condition." <S> You'll soon get used to the climate here. <S> Compare the following sentences. <S> She is used to getting what she wants from her parents. <S> It still is happening. <S> I was used to having an headache after eating fishes. <S> It doesn't happen anymore. <S> She left the television on while she was sleeping. <S> I got used to this after a while. <S> I gradually become used to this; nothing is said about this being still true . <S> Get used to this: <S> After you do it, their voices will be less boring than birds singing at 5 AM every day. <S> Notice that used to has a different meaning; it is used when describing an action or state of affairs that was done repeatedly or existed for a period in the past. <S> This road used to be a dirt track. <S> I used to give him <S> lifts home. <S> In most of the cases, you cannot replace one with the other one. <S> This road was used to be a dirt track. <A> Subject + auxiliary be + used to + verb + ing <S> I wasn't used to drinking wine when I first came to Greece, but that's changed now. <S> I am used to drinking wine at lunchtime. <S> I was used to drinking wine at lunchtime <S> but now I usually drink water. <S> In 1. <S> the speaker is talking about her initial experience of drinking wine. <S> It was a new for her <S> and she needed time to change her habits. <S> In 2. <S> She now drinks wine every day, <S> she is used to it . <S> in 3. <S> The speaker expresses a past habit that is no longer true in the present. <S> Subject + (auxiliary) <S> + get + used to + verb + ing <S> I can't get used to drinking wine at lunchtime <S> , it makes me feel sleepy. <S> I'm getting used to drinking wine since I have been living in Greece. <S> I got used to drinking wine at lunchtime, while I was living in Greece. <S> In 1. <S> The speaker is talking in the present, expressing her difficulty to change her habit. <S> There is a sense of change, a transition period. <S> As Kiamlaluno correctly states: As a linking verb, get means "to reach a particular state or condition." <S> In 2. <S> The speaker is expressing the transition period, her becoming more accustomed to the culture of drinking wine during meals. <S> She is half-way there so to speak. <S> In 3. <S> The speaker is talking about her experience of drinking wine while she was living in Greece. <S> She can now comfortably drink wine during the day without feeling sleepy.
| The difference is that be/get used to describes something with which you are familiar through experience.
|
Rephrasing "to be in the air" There was a sense of mystery in the air. Since "to be in the air", at least according to the dictionary I use ("i Garzantini"), can be translated using the verb "to hover", in order to make the above sentence, as to say, "more erudite", is it appropriate to rephrase it this way "It hovered a sense of mystery"? Or, maybe, "to hover" cannot be used in reference to abstract concepts? <Q> Sure, in the air can mean to hover – if you're talking about a helicopter, a hummingbird, or a biplane. <S> But consider this more metaphorical usage, listed in NOAD: in the air – noticeable all around; becoming prevalent : <S> I smell violence in the air . <S> I suppose you could use hover, if you wanted to, but it wouldn't be used to replace in the air . <S> I think that's an improvement over the original, simply because hovered <S> is a more interesting verb than was . <S> There are plenty of other ways to say it, though, too. <S> Besides Fumble's hung in the air suggestion, there's also: <S> A sense of mystery clouded the air. <S> A sense of mystery darkened the air. <S> Because these are transitive verbs (and not intransitive, like hovered ), we eliminate the preposition in . <A> Hover and be in the air <S> are only distantly synonymous, and only within a narrow range of reference. <S> Hover means to remain stationary over a particular place <S> Police helicopters hovered above the square. <S> OR to maintain a position over a particular moving object <S> Her mother hovered over her like a suspicious vulture. <S> It often implies that the subject is poised to drop or pounce on the place or object. <S> Be in the air means to be present or sensible wherever one goes . <S> It usually implies that the subject is sensible to and has an effect on everyone; often it means specifically that the subject is a universal topic of discussion. <S> Spring is in the air. <S> Rumours of war were in the air. <S> In your case: <S> ✲ <S> It hovered a sense of mystery is unidiomatic. <S> A sense of mystery hovered adds senses of threat and locational specificity which are not present in the original, and removes, or at least attenuates, the sense of great extension and effect. <A> It's definitely not appropriate to rephrase using hovers . <S> Unless you're a highly creative writer, but that has no relevance here on ELL. <S> A credible alternative to the verb to be when referencing a sense of mystery might be... <S> A sense of mystery hung in the air <S> I'm not sure it makes sense to try and explain why a sense of mystery wouldn't normally "hover". <S> They're all metaphorical references anyway; some are used quite often, <S> others rarely or never. <S> Who can say why a sense of mystery is far more likely to pervade rather than permeate ? <S> (it never penetrates or saturates ). <A> "In the air" here is an idiom. <S> The "sense of mystery" is not literally a physical object that is floating above the floor. <S> In general, you cannot substitute words that by a dictionary definition are synonymous for an idiom. <S> That makes it no longer an idiom, so people think you mean the words literally. <S> There are many jokes about someone trying to learn the language who tries to substitute such synonyms and leaves native speakers confused about what he means. <S> That's just not how the language works. <S> As I write this, I'm thinking of all sorts of idioms that would lose all meaning if reworded. <S> Like: <S> "I don't know the answer off the top of my head. <S> " I don't have that information readily available. <S> But, "I don't know the answer falling from my hair. <S> " <S> Not a clue what that means. <S> "Sally is a dog." <S> Sally is ugly. " <S> Sally is a canine. <S> " <S> She is literally the four-legged animal. <S> "Differential equations are over my head. <S> " The subject is too difficult for me to understand. "Differential equations are upstairs. <S> " <S> The class meets on the second floor. <S> "We're going to go to the ball game and have a blast! <S> " We will have a good time. <S> "We're going to go to the ball game and create an explosion! <S> " We are planning a terrorist attack at a public event. <S> Etc. <S> One could play this game forever. <A> float ? <S> There was a sense of mystery floating in the air. <S> or use "around" instead of " in the air" <S> There was a sense of mystery floating around.
| You can use hover ; but it won't mean the same thing. Instead, you might say: A sense of mystery hovered in the air.
|
"At which hotel" vs "At what hotel" Which word would you use in this question, which or what? At which hotel will we be staying during the conference? At what hotel will we be staying during the conference? <Q> The first link provided by Choster in the Comment section above has good answers to a similar question. <S> I am adding this answer here because it quotes from a relevant source. <S> The source is The Cambridge Grammar of English <S> (p388) which states the following (slightly adapted here): <S> What is used when specific information is requested from a general or open-ended possible range. <S> Which is used when specific information is requested from a restricted range of possibilities <S> : What's your phone number? <S> [*Which is your phone number?] <S> Looking at a pile of coats: Which is your coat? <S> [*What is your coat?] <S> On this basis At which hotel will we be staying during the conference? <S> would be the usual choice here. <S> However, the book goes on to state: <S> Here, what is an interrogative pronoun used as a determiner: What side of the street is the shop on? <S> Did you see the documentary? <S> - No, what channel was it on? <S> So, in summary both questions are possible but <S> At what hotel ... ? <S> is probably best restricted to informal contexts. <S> Addendum <S> In fact, starting with the preposition in itself makes the question more formal than pushing it to the end: <S> What hotel will we be staying at? <S> So, At what hotel ... ? <S> is somewhat of a mixture of formal and informal, and probably best avoided for that reason alone. <A> ‘Which’ and ‘what’ are both heard in English in this context. <S> ‘What’ is marked as being more colloquial, whereas ‘which’ can be seen as anything from neutral to formal in style. <S> So if you are writing a more or less formal (or at least not in formal) message to ask where you will be staying, ‘which’ is most likely to be the better choice. <S> If you are simply talking to someone you know <S> well, ‘what’ may sound more natural. <A> When there are several hotels for the questioner to chose, he will use "which", while when he does not want to choose or has no choice of the hotel and just want to know the name of the hotel that he will live in, he will use the word "what".
| Where the number of options is shared common knowledge among speakers and listeners, what + noun is often used in informal contexts.
|
From that day she won't / wouldn't talk to me From that day she won't / wouldn't talk to me. It refers to some day in the past . What is the difference in meaning between two ways? Compare it with "From that day she doesn't talk to me"? Let me guess that both ways are appropriate, but won't implies that she still doesn't talk to me now , at the time of utterance. <Q> Wouldn't is probably the correct word to use here. <S> "From that day, she wouldn't talk to me" means that she stopped talking to me on that day. <S> The phrase "from that day" implies that she has never talked to me since that day. <S> If the phrase "from that day" were absent, then this sentence could also mean that she stopped talking to me on that day, but then she started talking to me some time later. <S> "From that day, she won't talk to me" implies that she will stop talking to me some day in the future, but she hasn't stopped talking to me yet. <S> ("She won't talk to me", all by itself, means, for some reason, that she currently is refusing to talk to me, without implying anything about the past or future.) <A> If you want to talk about the past , use wouldn't talk . <S> From that day she wouldn't talk to me. <S> This sentence refers to the past and tells nothing about the present or future. <S> Something happened on some day in the past that caused her to refuse to talk to me since - that's all we know from this sentence. <S> It is likely to be found in stories that use the past as a narrative tense. <S> If you want to talk about the present , use hasn't talked , not doesn't talk . <S> From that day on she hasn't talked to me. <S> You have to use Present Perfect, not Present Simple, in this sentence if you want to say that it is still true now, because you are defining a time frame by including from that day . <S> If you omitted from that day , then the sentence "She doesn't talk to me" would sound totally fine. <S> If you use won't talk in your sentence, then it will refer to the future : <S> From that day she won't talk to me. <S> This sentence specifically refers to the future. <S> It has nothing to do with the present. <S> It hasn't happened yet. <S> It will only happen on some day in the future and from then on, she will not speak to you. <A> The time of utterance has nothing to do with the choice of words, but the time the action takes place does. <S> If you are talking about events in the past - which would probably be the more common use in conversational English - then you want: <S> From that day she wouldn't talk to me. <S> If the time span involved is in the future, then won't is correct. <S> A somewhat contrived example of this usage would be: <S> I'm taking over Mary's job while she's on holidays. <S> I can ask her any questions I want until Friday when she leaves. <S> From that day she won't talk to me. <S> By comparison, From that day she doesn't talk to me is a lot more awkward. <S> While not necessarily wrong, it doesn't have the same meaning as the first two examples. <S> Both won't/wouldn't carry a sense of intent or a decision (to not speak), whereas using doesn't indicates that speaking is a function she has no control over. <S> Without intending offence, I would normally only expect this usage from an ESL speaker who hadn't quite grasped the subtler differences between the terms. <S> A sentence such as: <S> From that day she doesn't get paid the allowance makes more sense, as this would not be a decision she's made. <A> It depends on the context. <S> If you're talking about an issue that's long done and put to rest, "she wouldn't talk to me from then on" implies that the issue is finished. <S> However, if you say "she won't talk to me from then on" implies you're hoping that this will be resolved in a better manner. <A> However, in the latter case, since (as in " since that day, she won't talk to me") is more natural than from .
| As you suggest, "... she wouldn't talk to me" refers to events entirely in the past, whereas "... she won't talk to me" in this instance means "she refuses to talk to me" in the present tense, rather than the future.
|
Meaning of "as complicated as it is" This area of science as complicated as it is . What does it mean? All instances I have found on the Internet have something at the end, e.g. "Buying gifts for men isn't nearly as complicated as it is for women ," "It isn't even a quarter as complicated as it is made out to be ." May I suggest that in my sentence it means that the area of science is complicated but it's because it has to be this complicated , by no means we can make it simpler. <Q> As J.R. says, this is a fragment as it stands. <S> Perhaps what you heard was <S> This area of science is complicated as it is. <S> As it is means as things presently stand or in the current circumstances when it modifies an entire clause <S> : As it is, we're going to lose money this month. <S> When it modifies a noun or (noun phrase) it means in its present state The business community, as it is, is nervous. <S> In this particular case it modifies complicated . <S> it in as it is refers to that subject: the phrase bears the second sense, in its present state <S> This area of science is complicated in its present state. <S> Very likely the speaker is addressing a new discovery or approach which makes this area of science even more complicated than it is now. <A> I'm guessing the complete quote was similar to one of these: <S> This area of science, as complicated as it is, ... <S> As complicated as this area of science is, ... <S> In this case, the sentence carries the same meaning as: <S> This area of science is complicated, but... <S> While this area of science is complicated, ... <S> In other words, before you make your statement, you first admit that the area of science is complicated, and that you are making your statement despite this condition. <S> It is likely that the second part of the sentence suggested something to the contrary, for instance: <S> This area of science, as complicated as it is, can be taught quite easily. <S> In this example, you are stating that this area of science is easy to teach. <S> This suggests that it is not complicated, however, which is false. <S> You want to make sure that your audience does not misunderstand your statement; that you are not denying the fact that it is complicated. <S> Here is a different example: <S> This drink, as horrible as it looks, is quite delicious. <S> I am telling my audience that this drink tastes good. <S> However, it does not look that way, maybe because the drink has an ugly colour. <S> Before they can say " <S> But it looks horrible!" <S> , I qualify my statement by saying "as horrible as it looks". <S> This is like saying, "Yes, I know this drink looks horrible, but even so, it is actually quite delicious." <A> I largely agree with StoneyB, but I think he's missing one key point. <S> When we say "X, as Y as it is ...", we usually follow it with some sort of counterpoint. <S> That is, we follow it by saying something that might seem paradoxical or contradictory to the stated property. <S> For example: This area of science, as complicated as it is, nevertheless can be understood by the average high school student if it is explained properly. <S> Or: Senator Jones, as powerful as he is now, will be ruined once I tell the press about this bribe he took. <S> The counterpoint could be to say "even more" rather than "less" or "despite": <S> Our company, rich as it is, will be even richer when this new product hits the market. <A> There is actually no need for the first 'as', but that form has crept in and is now quite widely used. <S> I believe it would be better and less cumbersome to say: 'The area of science, complicated as it is, can nevertheless be...' <S> as in the 'Our company, rich as it is...' example.
| That is a "predicate adjective" which in effect modifies the subject, area of science , so the
|
Should I always use a comma before a quote? When quoting something said by someone else, should I use a comma before the quote? Suppose I quote the definition given in a dictionary. Am I correctly using the the punctuation marks in the following sentences? (I am using them in the way I think correct in American English.) One of the meanings of cat is, "a small animal with soft fur that people often keep as a pet." A cadet is, "a young person who is training to become an officer in the police or armed forces." Should I use a comma only when I explicitly quote somebody? Groucho Marx once said, "Although it is generally known, I think it's about time to announce that I was born at a very early age." Should I use a comma in this case too? As Groucho Marx said, No one is completely unhappy at the failure of his best friend. On Comma Sense, A fun-damental guide to punctuation (Richard Lederer and John Shore), I read the following about using the comma: Use commas to set off complete quotations: The great general George S. Patton once said, "No, no—the war is this way, you idiots!" <Q> I've found a few sources that say to use a comma before the quotations, but they all seem to have different standards. <S> This one just says to use them all the time. <S> This source has a rule for short quotations. <S> Rule 16 Use commas to introduce or interrupt direct quotations shorter than three lines. <S> Examples: <S> He actually said, "I do not care." <S> "Why," I asked, "do you always forget to do it?" <S> And this last source has different rules for different situations. <S> First, use a comma to separate quoted material from the rest of the sentence that explains or introduces the quotation. <S> If you are splitting the quotation with attributing the person, you will need two commas. <S> " <S> The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many things." <S> But if you are introducing the quote with the word that or the quote is only a small segment of the sentence, do not use a comma. <S> Peter Coveney writes that "[t]he purpose and strength of […]." <S> We often say "Sorry" when we don't really mean it. <S> The last thing explains when to use a colon instead of a comma. <S> Use a colon to set off explanatory or introductory language from a quoted element that is either very formal or long (especially if it's longer than one sentence): <S> Peter Coveney had this to say about the nineteenth-century's use of children in fiction: "The purpose and strength of […]." <A> If it was a complete sentence before the quotes, use a colon. <S> If there's a phrase ending with a verb, use a comma. <S> If the sentence ends in a subordinating conjunction, use no punctuation. <S> (words like "that")Never use a semi-colon when introducing a quote. <S> Never have a sentence with a period before a quote. <A> I tend to use commas in a dialogue, otherwise, I prefer colons. <S> . . . to which Steve said, "What time are you coming home?" (or) Jones argued: "If he was the only victim, why did they find three DNA signatures from blood collected at the crime scene?" <S> In academic writing, I favor the colon. <S> In informal registers, the comma.
| Use a comma to shift between the main discourse and a quotation.
|
Difference between "Wheel" and " Tires" I assume that this is one of the US English and UK English differences. Which is the most common phrase: 1) I need new "wheels" for my car. or 2) I need new "tires" for my car. <Q> Generally speaking, a wheel is a round object with a hub and an axle. <S> A tire is the rubber part of a wheel that grips the road. <S> Not all wheels have tires. <S> For example, a gyroscope wheel might not have a tire. <S> An old covered wagon wheel would not have a tire, either, but the covered wagon would still have four wheels. <S> A small lawn mower wheel might be cast entirely from plastic, so the mower may not have tires, either. <S> Wheels are for rolling (or sometimes spinning, consider a roulette wheel, for example); tires are for traction. <S> In an automobile, the wheels on a car consist of the rims and the tires . <S> We generally replace tires , not wheels (the slang usage mentioned by WendiKidd notwithstanding). <S> That said, a mechanic may explain how a transmission sends power from the engine to the wheels. <A> As far as I'm aware there is no UK/US difference here, except in how we spell "tires"; in the US it is tires and in the UK it is tyres . <S> In normal conversation we would refer to them as tires , so your example sentence "I need new tires for my car" would be correct. <S> Wheels , on the other hand, can be used in a slang sense to describe an entire car . <S> "I need a new set of wheels" doesn't mean you need new tires, it means you need a new car . <S> So "I need new wheels for my car" doesn't make much sense (unless you're buying a car for your car). <S> (This is at least true of AmE, anyway. <S> This slang sense might not apply in the UK. <S> But tires are tires (are tyres) <S> no matter where you go!) <A> When you are driving along and you have a "blowout" or get a puncture/flat tyre, you need to either call your Roadside Assist Insurance provider or otherwise use your "spare wheel" (if you have one!!) <S> to overcome the problem. <S> Many cars these days do not even includde a "spare wheel"; not even an emergency wheel that is only rated for 80 km/h (~50 mph). <S> Such cars only provide a Pressure-pack <S> can that can (theoretically) inject a sealant into the tyre/tube and also re-inflate the tyre. <S> If the actual tyre (the black, rubber thing that fits around the metal wheel rim), has been damaged, or even destroyed, by the sudden deflation of the pneumatic tyre, it will then be necessary to actually CHANGE THE TYRE.Changing <S> the tyre involves the removal of the damaged tyre from the wheel RIM.The absolute minimum tools required to perform this operation, is a set of (two) tyre levers. <S> It is also preferred that a rubber hammer/mallet. is also on hand. <S> There must be videos out there <S> that demonstrate how to actually remove a tyre from a rim, and how to re-install a tyre to a rim, so I will not try to explain it in text. <S> The point is, it is a vast difference between changing a wheel and changing a tyre.
| In short, the tire is part of some wheels.
|
What is the difference between "Gas" / "Petrol" / "Benzine" / "Gasoline" I get always confused with that. What am I suppose to use for what and where (US English / UK English?) Example: I need " gas / petrol / benzine / gasoline " for my car. <Q> Gasoline is the full word that gas is shortened from, but no one is likely to say "I need to put some gasoline in my car" (though we would be likely to say "Your garage smells like gasoline!" in the US. <S> When it's being put into a car <S> it's gas ; when it's being discussed in any other way it's most often gasoline ). <S> I've never heard benzine used in reference to car fuel. <S> In fact before looking it up just now, I'd only ever heard it in reference to its use in sodas! <S> I don't think anyone uses benzine to describe car fuel. <S> Suffice it to say that if you use gas or petrol , depending on your location, you will be perfectly well understood. <A> "I need "Gas / Petrol / Benzine / Gasoline" for my car." <S> In AmE, "I need gas for my car <S> " refers to gasoline that you would buy at a gas station. <S> But "I need gas for my stove," or "I need gas for my heater (or furnace) <S> " refers to natural gas that is usually piped into your home by a utility company. <S> You generally wouldn't say "gasoline" or "natural gas" in informal speech, unless it were needed to clarify which kind of gas you were talking about: <S> "They threw gasoline onto the wood stacked up for the bonfire." <S> "The natural gas plant is a few miles from town." <S> But: "After paying my gas bill, I had just enough money left over to put gas in the car." If you need petrol for your car, you're someplace where they speak British English. <S> If you need benzine/benzene for your car, I'm pretty sure you're speaking something other than American or British English. <A> Gas is short for gasoline . <S> You can also put "gas" into your car that is not gasoline, for instance liquid petroleum gas <S> which, here in Australia is very popular (and cheap) which is actually gaseous. <S> When people say "fill my car with gas", I instantly think they mean LPG. <S> I think that petrol is a much more satisfactory word, due to the fact that gas can mean something completely different (as an end result). <S> All of it really comes from petroleum anyway, (just refined). <A> I can remember as a young child growing up in New Zealand in the fifties, hearing the word benzine being used as a word for petrol. <S> As in, "I'm going to the garage to put some Benzine in my car". <S> Then again, as a child, I could have misinterpreted what was being talked about. <S> There were many different grades of petrol as well as many additives. <A> In Britain, you call it petrol . <S> In India, you call it petrol . <S> In the U.S., you call it gas or gasoline .
| Gas is the US term for the fuel put in cars; the Brits call it petrol .
|
Difference between "Thru" and "Through" I can't figure out what the difference between thru and through is. I'm working on a text for a website. I described some process and used this sentence: [...] when guiding the user through the order process. Is that correct, or should I instead use the following sentence? [...] when guiding the user thru the order process. <Q> Note that in British English, thru is widely considered incorrect, although it is a common shorthand for through in text messaging and instant messaging. <S> So in summary, when you see thru written, read it as through , but you should try to avoid using thru yourself except in very informal messaging with friends, as it is less popular, less formal and less widely accepted than through <S> and you can always replace thru with through without loss of meaning. <A> Through and thru have the same meaning. <S> They even sound the same. <S> Thru is just a shortened version of through . <S> The same way that you can, informally, use r instead of are . <A> Thru is merely an informal spelling of through , in the same way gas is a North American informal short for gasoline . <S> As the Oxford Dictionary of English, 3rd edition says, thru is chiefly North American. <A> Thru is a variant spelling of through and, according to B.A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern American Usage , it "should be shunned", even if it appears on street signs (NO THRU ROAD).
| Thru and through are different spellings of the same word, although through is widely accepted as the more "normal" spelling: The following NGram from the American English corpus, shows that even in US English, through has always been vastly more popular than thru .
|
What is the different between "what" and "which"? What is the difference between what and which ? For example, what is the difference between the following sentences? What is correct? Which is correct? <Q> What is used when you are asking a question that can have an unlimited number of possible answers. <S> What is your name? <S> You can receive any answer! <S> Which is used when the options for the answer are limited. <S> Which one is the most beautiful? <S> The red or the yellow? <S> You can receive only two answers. <A> Which and what have different meanings. <S> Which is "used in questions to ask somebody to be exact about one or more people or things from a limited number. <S> " <S> For example, you ask "What name to give to your son do you prefer?" <S> because there are many possible names to give to a baby, including the ones in other languages. <S> Suppose instead that you are talking to somebody who is telling that his wife prefers Michael , her mother prefers Andrew , and his mother likes Alberto . <S> If you ask him "Which name do you prefer? <S> " you are asking him the name he prefers between those three; if you ask him "What name do you prefer? <S> " you are asking him the name he prefers, not excluding any other name that is not Michael , Andrew , or Alberto . <S> In your case, "Which is correct?" could be asked when the person who is talking to you said, for example, "You could do this or that. <S> " <S> Your question is asking "Between this and that, what is correct?" <A> 'What' stands as the subject and 'which' is the object of the sentence, also 'which' can stands as subject of the which clause that replace the whole clause of the previous sentence. '
| What' is used to ask an unknown thing while 'which' means a choice among several things.
|
How can I tell the difference between "an hour" meaning "per hour" versus "in one hour's time"? The "an" can be used as a preposition with the meaning of "per": My rate is $10 an hour . Also it can be a used as a determiner: I will be ready in an hour . How can I tell these 2 apart? <Q> As you said, an can mean something similar to per , or it can be used to mean a/one . <S> If you take your two examples and substitute the 'definitions' instead of the word <S> an in each case, it is quickly clear which makes sense and which doesn't: <S> My rate is $10 per hour. <S> Meaning: " <S> I charge $10 for each hour" - makes sense My rate is $10 one hour. <S> Meaning: <S> Nothing; this doesn't make sense as an English sentence. <S> So you know this isn't the correct meaning. <S> I will be ready in one hour. <S> Meaning: "When one hour has passed, I will be ready" - makes sense <S> I will be ready in per hour. <S> Meaning: Again, nothing; this just doesn't make sense. <S> So as you can see, if you know multiple meanings of a word, you can substitute each meaning into the sentence and see if the sentence makes sense. <S> That way you can tell from the context which definition applies. <A> Substitute per for a(n) . <S> If it's ungrammatical, it can't mean per . <S> My rate is $10 an hour. <S> My rate is $10 per hour. <S> This example works. <S> I will be ready in an hour. <S> ＊I will be ready in per hour. <S> This example does not. <S> In this sentence, the preposition in needs to be followed by a noun phrase; an hour works as a noun phrase, but per hour is a preposition phrase, <S> so it's ungrammatical. <S> In other words, you can distinguish the two syntactically. <A> It's entirely by context. <S> In the first case you have a unit $10 and a measurement the "hour". <S> In the second you're specifying a time allotment.
| It's the same for any word that has multiple meanings; you have to determine it from context.
|
what's the difference between "the summer holiday" and "the summer holidays"? "I'll go to visit my aunt in England as soon as the summer holidays start." Does "the summer holidays" refer to many days in the holiday, or many different summer holidays? I prefer to regard the summer holiday as a whole, so I tend to use the singular form. <Q> Both "summer holiday" and "summer holidays" are commonly used, and mean the same thing. <S> A native English speaker would use either the singular or plural form interchangeably without thinking about it, but I don't see any reason not to think of it as the "many days in the holiday", as you suggest. <S> It appears that the original meaning of "holiday" is "holy day" , which might account for the plural use to describe a multi-day holiday. <A> "Holiday" can refer to a single day, such as Independence Day, Easter, or Rosh Hashanah. "Holidays" can refer to a list of holidays, such as I just gave, or it can refer to a holiday season, as in the greeting, "Happy holidays." <S> Lastly the word "holiday" can refer to a time of vacation. <S> All of these nuances can be found in dictionaries, such as this one and this one . <S> Because there are relatively few holidays in the summertime, but many people take a vacation in the summer ( <S> when kids are on summer recess from school), I would generally interpret summer holidays in one of two ways, depending on the context. <S> If someone said, My family would spend their summer holidays in Brighton. <S> then I would interpret that to mean a series of summer vacations; that is, the family was on holiday in Brighton on more than one or two occasions, in separate years. <S> However, if someone said: I hope you all have safe summer holidays. <S> I would interpret that to mean "I hope everyone who decides to vacation this summer will do so safely." <S> In the latter case, one could also say: I hope everyone has a safe summer holiday. <S> but that might sound awkward to some, considering the chances are very slim that everyone will be taking their summer holiday at the same time. <S> Some may take a holiday in July; others might wait until August. <S> However, I hope everyone is safe during the Christmas holiday(s). <S> would mean, "be safe during the days around Christmas," whether holiday is singular or plural. <A> It is a period of time off for students and staff. <S> It normally begins in late July and ends in early September. <S> Both summer holiday and summer holidays are used to refer to this. <S> I get the impression that the quote in the question is talking about this.
| In the UK, summer holidays refers to the break between the end of one school year and the start of the next one.
|
Looking for an English word that means all kinds of educational texts What word English speakers use to name educational texts in general - textbooks, tutorial, educational and encyclopedia articles. In my native language there is such word - it meaning covers everything, that you can read while studying subject. Something close in English? <Q> See Collins, Definition #7 : reference (n.) <S> a source of information or facts <S> The word is also used as a modifier, as in reference books . <S> There is also the term reference library , which is where a library shelves books that can't be checked out. <S> The word has a lot of meanings, so it's not a special-purpose word that specifically and exclusively means "textbooks, tutorials, educational and encyclopedia <S> articles that one can read while studying a particular subject. <S> " <S> However, if you were to write a paper, and you wanted to list all the sources you used to acquire information, you could do so under the heading REFERENCES . <S> Edit : As FumbleFingers mentioned in his comment, there is also the term literature . <S> I've seen that when it refers to published works about a particular topic. <S> As one helpful website says: <S> The first part of any scientific thesis, dissertation, or journal article is a literature review . <S> Yes, I know it’s usually called the introduction. <S> But that’s all the introduction really is – a review of everything anyone has ever written relevant to your topic , as well as a short statement as to what your aims are. <A> Teachers often use the word materials for the resources they use in the course of their teaching. <S> Materials include not only printed texts but online texts, audio files, Powerpoint presentations, videos, and so on. <S> You might find the following website useful. <S> Here is an extract from their page entitled: Development of Educational Materials . <S> In this referral center you will find a systematic approach to development and design of hypertext educational materials. <S> The knowledge and skills presented in these materials will help you develop higher quality hypertext materials for different purposes, ranging from personal pages to university textbooks. <S> http://www.carnet.hr/referalni/obrazovni/en/iom.html <A> I would think 'publications' might be a good fit for this need. <S> It implies books, periodicals, and most other printed or even electronic materials. <S> To specify a particular subset of all specific publications, I would use the phrase 'relevant publications' or 'related publications,' as is appropriate.
| There might be more than one word you could use; the first one that came to my mind was references .
|
When should I use "caution" instead of "warning" and vice versa? Can you tell me in which context I should use caution and warning ? Caution seems more formal, and more serious than warning . Caution can imply fatal , while warning refers to errors or mistakes. <Q> Caution seems more formal, and more serious than warning. <S> Actually, in some contexts, the opposite is true. <S> In the US, there is an ANSI standard for safety signage (and I believe a corresponding ISO standard) that specifies how these words are used in signs in the workplace: <S> Warning <S> —Indicate a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury. <S> Caution <S> —Indicate a potentially hazardous situation which, if not avoided, may result in minor or moderate injury. <S> ( source ) <S> For example, <A> Warning is an explanation about a thing or an act at a particular place where a person might accidentally harm his/herself. <S> It is a symbol or a message conveyed to the person in a place where a factor of risk occurs. <S> Caution <S> maybe the procedures to note something before touching or acting on a thing or product. <A> When warning means "a statement telling somebody that they will be punished if they continue to behave in a particular way," it is synonym with caution . <S> Two of the meanings of caution are: A warning that is given by the police to somebody who has committed a crime that is not too serious (British English) <S> A warning or a piece of advice about a possible danger or risk (Formal) <S> Caution also means "care that you take in order to avoid danger or mistakes; not taking any risks." <S> In that case, you cannot replace it with warning . <S> * Statistics should be treated with warning.
| Caution may also be used to alert against unsafe practices.
|
"Talk in person" in one English word? I have the following sentence: I haven't had a chance to talk in person about how much I've grown my passion in our common interest--art. Question: Is there a single word to replace "talk in person" above? Is there any better place to put "in person" in above sentence? EDIT:Thanks @Mari-LouA for your support. As she mentions in the comment below, I'd also like to know if I can improve my sentence grammatically. If I can improve the sentence by rearranging the words or replacing few words to be more concise, that would be great! <Q> And when we say talk <S> it is not understood that it is face to face, it can be by phone, by a series of emails, videochat and so on. <A> I haven't had the opportunity to discuss with you, (about) how much my passion in art has grown ever since I started studying in your classes. <S> I've changed your original sentence quite radically, this version may or may not be what you are looking for. <S> No doubt, someone will dissect it to pieces but it is a starting point! <S> Addendum <S> To discuss means to have a conversation with another person. <S> As I speak Italian I am aware that this verb can and does create problems for speakers of other Romance languages as the verb, discuss, usually has negative connotations in their language. <S> Discussione in Italian is quite similar to the English definition of argument and quarrel . <S> However, in English, discussion is often used when two or more people are especially interested in a topic or a subject. <S> Sometimes discussions are calm, well mannered and polite. <S> Sometimes they can become over excited, passionate and heated, which eventually will lead onto an argument (a very common occurrence in Italy!). <S> In the case of Sean Pierre, I chose the verb discuss purposely, because he expressed a desire to talk to his mentor, in person, and to thank him for communicating and transmitting his passion in the fine arts. <S> Indubitably, the two would have continued their conversation, and most likely to have remained on the topic of art. <S> Therefore, discuss , for all the reasons I stated above, performs this task (talk in person) more effectively than to talk . <A> There isn't a verb for "talking in person," since talking in person is still talking. <S> If you say "when we talked" most of the people would think of when you talked in person, or the last time you talked. <S> If you are referring to talking on the phone, and you see the other person confused from "when we talked," you would precise saying "when we talked on the phone." <A> As @kiamlaluno suggests, the single word to replace "talk in person" is "talk". <S> "In person" is redundant. <S> So is "common interest. <S> " I would suggest rewriting as follows: I haven't had a chance to tell you how much my passion for art has grown. <S> As an aside, you should say "passion for art" rather than "passion in art".
| There is nothing wrong with "talk in person" or "talk face to face" unless you want to limit the number of words in Twitter or you send a telegram.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.